Dear friends and supporters,

We are pleased to let you know that we are applying for permission to appeal the judgment received on March 8th.

The government stated repeatedly over the course of the Court Hearing that its “opinion” is that 5G is safe; this opinion has been arrived at apparently without scrutinising the position of ICNIRP, upon which the government itself relies. ICNIRP does not say that 5G is safe; not only does it leave many questions as to safety unanswered, but it also specifically sets out members of the public who are excluded from its notion of protection.

Meanwhile, yet another report has been recently declassified, this from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington DC. It seeks to identify the likely causes of “Havana Syndrome”.

“Havana syndrome is a series of debilitating symptoms that first affected U.S. intelligence officers and embassy staffers stationed in Havana, Cuba, in late 2016. In the following year, American diplomats in different parts of the world reported similar symptoms”. https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_havana_syndrome/article.htm

The National Intelligence paper is called “Anomalous Health Incidents, Analysis of Potential Causal Mechanisms” and is much redacted but lists six findings, three of which are:

• The signs and symptoms of AHIs are genuine and compelling 
• A subset of AHIs have [sic] a unique combination of core characteristics that cannot be explained by known environmental or medical conditions and could be due to external stimuli
• Electromagnetic energy, particularly pulsed signals in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics, although information gaps exist

https://media.salon.com/pdf/22-cv-674%20Final%20Response%20Package.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2RMoCwETlLyje5D8GAdXh9hfWfc5IIR8kYHKqx7KBONZrRIM4tFssybko

Also recently released, this paper further corroborates Professor Tom Butler's expert testimony that we presented to the Court: “Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks“.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1538544223000238 

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director University of California, Berkeley, highlights an extremely important fact in his March 28th report: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5g-wireless-technology-is-5g-harmful-to.html

There are only 3 out of 38,000 studies which research biological and health effects of “real-life” 5G using millimeter waves“.

He explains “real-life” millimetre wave 5G utilises modulated frequencies which are likely more biologically potent than unmodulated frequencies, so the Karipidis et al review of unmodulated frequency research presented to the court by the government, is of limited relevance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33727687/

The Karipidis paper has been severely criticised by Belyaev et al for its inaccurate reporting of the source science and for using a line of reasoning supportive of industry interests. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-022-00497-8

“…This line of reasoning parallels that used previously by scientists working for the tobacco industry, whose studies repeatedly arrived at conclusions suggesting no clear determination of harm could be made. This was part of a broader strategy of manufacturing doubt about the potential negative health effects of their product, as summarised by Gilbert.”

It is deeply frustrating that the Belyaev et al rebuttal could not be submitted to the court due to the limitations set by the directions to the Court regarding contested science. The paper rebuttal paints a clear picture of the distortions which are being used to prop up the industry-influenced ICNIRP guidelines.

"The biased selections and assessments that have been uncovered in the Karipidis review create an unbalanced view of the science, and skew the final conclusion towards uncertainty. In contrast, when appraising all relevant findings, the evidence found in our review points to risks not fully considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) or the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) in their respective RF guidelines and RF standards. These guidelines do not reflect the current state of scientific knowledge and are based on acute heating protection only, which is purely for regulatory convenience. The gulf between thermal and non-thermal evaluative frameworks has previously been discussed."

This Redmayne et al February 2023 paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5267 states:

“Many significant sources conclude there is insufficient research to assure safety even from the heat perspective.” 

and concludes:

“…surface radiofrequency exposure assessments including mmW radiation are insufficient to ensure safety… Without research on the impact of near-field 5G, this global step is an experiment at the population level. Bearing this in mind, there is a vital and urgent need for targeted research and for a re-evaluation of the scientific relevance of the current RF human exposure standards’ basic approach and assumptions”.

The stated opinion of the government that 5G is safe is not based on positive knowledge as is clear. Such knowledge is as yet unavailable; it is an opinion made in the absence of supporting facts because 5G has barely been researched.

Thank you for your continued support and encouragement, for which we are so very grateful.

AA5G Team

The Administrative Court of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court has handed down the Court’s judgment on our judicial review hearing. It is our duty to inform supporters that the Honourable Mrs Justice Stacey’s judgment was not in our favour. We need properly to review the judgment before offering detailed commentary and opinions.

We were granted permission on the basis that there is a potential failure in the duty to communicate risk*.

We were not permitted to challenge ‘contested scientific matters’, which amounted to a plethora of peer-reviewed science we presented that remained unexamined and unacknowledged. We were not able to challenge the Government’s interpretation of scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to review scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to undertake a proper assessment of 5G risks. Overall, we were not permitted to question the Government’s approach to regulation of 5G and we were not permitted to challenge the Government’s adoption of the ICNIRP guideline.

Our argument was that the Government was not entitled to tell the public there was no risk from 5G namely that it was safe (see Judgment point 77 below). Adopting a ‘guideline’ which describes ‘expectations of safety’, whose authors confess their guideline is based on incomplete research of multiple possible health outcomes does not translate to ‘5G is safe’. The description ‘5G is safe’ even without the qualification ‘within the guideline’ was never employed in the ICNIRP’s literature upon which the Government claimed it had based its advice to the public.

‘5G is safe’ is blatantly at best a misleading oversimplification even when argued from the extremely narrow grounds we were granted when our peer-reviewed science and expert reports confirming biological and health effects remain in the wings.

The most the Government can say is that they do not know what the likelihood of harm is. Notably, but not exclusively, ICNIRP Appendix B on IMMUNE SYSTEM AND HAEMATOLOGY cannot possibly found a basis for assertions of safety for the many who are immunocompromised. Absence of confirmation of harms to immunity seen in animals due to research not yet scientifically conducted in humans is not proof of safety.

No account has been taken for ICNIRP’s exclusion of risks to the public with metal implants and medical devices, which amounts to setting aside a vast percentage of the population, notably all children with dental brackets and those with pacemakers.

To say 5G is safe, one would have to prove 5G is safe but the fact is that 5G has not been scientifically tested for safety in real life exposure conditions. Denying the evidence does not refute it or make it go away. Only very recently have two studies been published by Lennart Hardell et al, clearly evidencing harms to those living under 5G antennae placed on their apartment building, both published after our initial evidence bundle was prepared leaving these too remaining in the wings.

The Government’s core premise that 5G is fundamentally the same as 4G, presented by the defendants, was accepted by Judge Stacey which again reflected a dismissal of clear irrefutable facts which were well evidenced.

We argued that unchallenged evidence of serious harm to a range of individuals arising from and only from, presence within RF fields of electromagnetic radiation, especially 5G, is a risk that requires a public health warning.

The point of this case might be questioned by some given, after several applications and appeals, the increasing narrowness of the allowable legal arguments, but something of great importance has emerged.

This judgment reveals that the Government has now adopted a position whereupon it will decide what will be classified as ‘disinformation’, and in this case by implication, it has ascribed peer-reviewed scientific evidence ‘disinformation’.

At point 76: ‘It is uncontroversial that clear and accurate public information and guidance is extremely and increasingly important to counter inaccurate rumours, disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories which are so easily spread on social media’.

The above statement has great relevance in the wider context; demonstrating that a Government position decides upon what factually based (or other) evidence it will or will not allow to prevail. Here revealed is the determination of the Government to decide upon ‘accuracy’ of information and then, based on what information it believes ‘dangerous’ to the population, will categorise it as ‘rumours, disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories.’ It further discloses that information that does not conform to the Government position must be actively ‘countered.’ We do not accept that this situation is in any way ‘uncontroversial’.

The judgment discloses the will of Government to censor, firstly by omission and secondly through repression and countering measures, information and accumulated knowledge to which people have right of access and without which we will be subject to oppression and dictatorship. 

The living experience of the population, if it does not conform, is to be and is already, actively discredited.

Supporters of this case who live in the vicinity of a RF emitting mast might consider this point as demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue: Point 77. ‘Although it [the Government] believes 5G is safe, out of an abundance of caution and on conservative principles it has suggested that those who are worried could, for example unplug the router at night, or not sleep with their mobile phone by their bed and to use their device further away from their body.’ Cold comfort indeed for those many people who have written to us describing how their lives and health have been ruined by exposure to radiation from nearby masts!

We are now carefully considering this judgment and will report back to you. Thank you for all your wonderful messages and unswerving support, for which we are hugely grateful.

AA5G Team

*Note: The grounds for the judicial review were extremely narrow and constrained, they were: 1.) failure to provide adequate or effective information about 5G risks and their mitigation; 2.) failure to justify the lack of any process to investigate 5G health risks; and 3.) failure to meet the transparency standards required of a public body.

Is the government informing the public of risks associated with 5G roll out?

This update is from our barrister, Philip Rule, written for his chambers’ website:

On 6 and 7 February 2023 the Administrative Court heard the judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to address the evidence of risks to human health posed by 5G technology.

No5’s Philip Rule acts for the claimants, led by Michael Mansfield KC, and instructed by Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs LLP. The case is brought by Action Against 5G and with the support of the public through Crowd Justice.

At the hearing the government argued that there is no duty to inform the public of any risks at all, because it essentially denies that there are any risks from the increased exposures or new form of radiation frequency to be used in 5G rollout. This is in keeping with its publications that have sought to reassure the public that there – categorically and conclusively – is no chance of harm arising from exposure to 5G and radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”).

The claimants’ case was outlined to the Court identifying that such a position taken by the government is not based upon the scientific report that the government itself has advanced as being the most up-to-date piece of international research. That is the “ICNIRP” (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) March 2020 guidelines. These however are far from finding that there are no risks at all.

Indeed, far from providing any proof of an absence of risk, the ICNIRP guidelines in fact evidence the existence of risks, and notes that several are yet to be fully understood or proven by repetition of study or by anthropological study directly on people who are ‘guinea pigs’ for ubiquitous RFR or 5G in the real-world.

ICNIRP summarises that it concludes, (based on its very limited approach discussed above) that there are already three substantiated effects caused by exposure to radiofrequency EMFs: (i) nerve stimulation, (ii) changes in the permeability of cell membranes, and (iii) effects due to temperature elevation. For many other recorded matters, it essentially notes the jury is still out, but did not find that as yet the harm to human health has already been proven. In particular there are not yet any significant number of studies into 5G technology (which uses high frequency waves, and targeted beams and pulsation in a way earlier generations did not).

For those with disability treated by medical implant the consideration of safety given by ICNIRP, in its revised 2020 guidelines expressly do not cater for their safety. As well as those genetically or environmentally susceptible to suffer cancer or EHS in the future from the exposure to RFR, there are also existing vulnerable groups who ought to be considered and who deserve to be given information to assist them (but have not been), including:

i. Those with disabilities that require medical implants with electrical currents or conductivity, including pace-makers in the heart for example. (This important issue has simply not been addressed at all by ICNIRP);

ii. Those with disability/injury that required the implant of metal to their body;

iii. Children–for instance, children’s brains absorb greater quantity of RFR, and bone marrow exposure is greater; as well as their lifespan exposure being of longer duration;

iv. Those who presently suffer disability arising from existing cancer;

v. Those presently suffering pre-cancerous conditions;

vi. Those exposed habitually to radiation in the workplace, of particular levels or longevity;

vii. Those with immunosuppressant conditions;

viii. Those suffering from ME;

ix. Those suffering from EHS.

The Court was shown, for example, that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to non-ionising radiation including radiofrequency is notably a recorded disease or illness recognised by the WHO, since 2005, in the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 (even if the precise cause is not yet understood or known). A responsible body of scientific study has raised concerns about risks that remain under study. Many studies ICNIRP identifies have identified certain effects that might prove harmful and their substantiation by further study is awaited – but a position where the jury is out is not the same as a concluded final position established by study that finds a radiation is safe, or safe for all people. Limitations on current knowledge are relevant when assurances are sought to be given by the government. The public has the right to be informed and not misled about how much is known or can be stated with certainty, and what risks remain to be investigated or conclusively determined one way or the other.

The Court of Appeal previously granted permission for the case to proceed on the grounds that challenge:

1. The failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks;

2. (a) The failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available; and/or (b) failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body.

These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judgment is awaited from the Administrative Court in due course.

[Philip kindly goes on to note …]

If you feel you may have been affected by the implementation of 5G masts and devices in your environment (or just wish to read more about the studies and scientific research in this field) you may wish to visit https://actionagainst5g.org/ for more information”.

Action Against 5G notes as follows:

In 2020, ICNIRP also noted that biological effects are not easily discernible from adverse health effects, and that their guidelines:

“are not intended to protect against biological effects as such (when compensatory mechanisms are overwhelmed or exhausted), unless there is also an associated adverse health effect. However, it is not always easy to draw a clear distinction between biological and adverse health effects, and indeed this can vary depending on individual susceptibility to specific situations. An example is sensory effects from nonionizing radiation exposures under certain circumstances, such as a tingling sensation resulting from peripheral nerve stimulation by electric or magnetic fields; magnetophosphenes (light flickering sensations in the periphery of the visual field) resulting from stimulation of the retina by electric fields induced by exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields; and microwave hearing resulting from thermoelastic waves due to expansion of soft tissues in the head which travel via bone conduction to the inner ear. Such perceptions may sometimes lead to discomfort and annoyance. ICNIRP does not consider discomfort and annoyance to be adverse health effects by themselves, but, in some cases, annoyance may lead to adverse health effects by compromising well-being. The exposure circumstances under which discomfort and annoyance occur vary between individuals.”

Thus there are many identified potential outcomes. Philip notes above “Many studies ICNIRP identifies have identified certain effects” and we add also that many responsible bodies of scientific study (for example the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Austrian Medical Chambers, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, European Academy for Environmental Medicine, International Society of Doctors for the Environment, Environmental Health Trust, BioInitiative Working Group, French National Assembly) have identified verified risks and that courts have ruled in favour of the science presented by some of these bodies contrary to ICNIRP’s assessment of the same science regarding these risks.

[PLEASE NOTE that the AA5G team does not have the resources to advise on or support mast objections and other local actions. We refer you to the excellent material on rfinfo.co.uk.]

Huge thanks to the many who braved freezing weather and transport disruptions to attend the original hearing and to support us on December 13th.

Michael Mansfield sustained an injury on the way to Court, the injury was non-serious but nevertheless warranted a visit to A&E so the hearing was adjourned until the 6th and 7th February 2023, over 1½ days.

We need all your support at this critical point in our case so please come and join a peaceful presence outside the court as we hold the Government to account by Judicial Review. If you could, aim to arrive by 9.30 a.m., as the judge on arrival must feel our strength of opposition.

Thank you all for your supportive comments and for sharing our commitment to a successful outcome for this important case. A public interest case of this magnitude is costly and your continued donations are so very much appreciated to continue to pay legal fees.

Please consider that if every one of you kind supporters were able to donate just half of what you have already donated, we would reach our target!

The team at Actionagainst5G

The full day Court Hearing will take place at The Royal Courts of Justice on Strand, London WC2A 2LL on Tuesday, 13th December. 

The legal team have completed the preparation of the Exhibits, Statements and Reports and are now ready for the case to be heard. 

The work on the Court bundles has been enormous, the commitment of our legal team has been outstanding and the preparation of documentation quite astonishing. Their dedication is unrivalled and for their 32 months of diligent work we are enormously grateful.

We want to thank every one of you for your wonderful donations, your support and for your greatly appreciated comments. Your trust in our work on the challenge we share has encouraged us immeasurably.

Your continued support would be very welcome as there are outstanding legal costs.

We would love you to join with us and focus on bringing truth, wisdom and justice to the Court on the day. 

And please share this news, this appeal and our website: https://actionagainst5g.org where there is information, news and blogs. Many more people are learning of the harm caused by radiation to all life, that affects their children’s health and the environment, and there has been no environmental risk assessment of the effects of 5G. They may gladly wish to support this case.

There will be a meeting at a local venue after the hearing where our legal adviser Lorna Hackett will be present to share information about the proceedings. We will make a further announcement about the venue closer to the time.

With gratitude to you all, may truth prevail.

From all of us at actionagainst5G.

UPDATE - PERMISSION GRANTED AT THE COURT OF APPEAL

We are delighted to announce that the Court of Appeal has today granted permission for our case to proceed on two grounds concerning:

1. The failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks;

2. (a) The failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available; and/or (b) failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body.

These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case will now be sent back to the Administrative Court and we await the directions as to the full hearing in due course.

To our wonderful supporters: this is YOUR victory. Without your unerring faith in our case, this would not have been possible.

With eternal gratitude,

Action Against 5G

Thank you for all your support and work so far. As Michael Mansfield says, ‘we will not stop here.’

Yours sincerely,  

The team at AA5G 

Dear Friends and Supporters

"On August 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current human exposure guidelines adequately protect the public against all the harmful effects of exposure to 5G, cell tower, cell phone and wireless technologies.”

This is a critically important, landmark, Appeal ruling in the US (August 13th), which ought to have enormous global ramifications, for our case and for all those seeking to highlight the risks of human exposure to 5G and wireless technology radiation  -  where the court held that the safety limits used were both ‘arbitrary and capricious’.

Whilst no two cases are factually identical, the principles are often similar. 

The obvious similarity is the manner in which authorities both side of the Atlantic have engaged in processes which have ignored studies about potential health harms. 

The core failures in the US case related to the process adopted by the Federal Communications Commission which disclosed -  (i) the absence of a reasoned record of review for the thousands of pages of submitted scientific evidence and most importantly (ii) the absence of a reasoned explanation for its assertion that it’s guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation.

The main grounds of our renewal for a court hearing strongly echo these points: 

• This case concerns an important issue of public safety. It raises the risk to which members of the public, including particular vulnerable individuals, and children, are being exposed without having consented to or agreed to expose themselves to that risk; and without an adequate and proper consideration undertaken by the relevant safeguarding authorities of the creation of those man-made public health risks. 
• Failure to, or abdication of responsibility to, review the scientific and available evidence as the body responsible for the safety of citizens / Failure to take account of evidence of the risk posed to human health by radiofrequency radiation, ‘RFR’, and/or 5G; 
• Failure to undertake an effective independent and sufficiently informed assessment of the risks;
• Failure to implement effective safeguards to protect the public from the risks or potential risks, including those posed to children attending schools and nurseries and/or to those with a disability;
• Absence of sufficient measures to provide effective protection for children from the real risk of harm;
• The adoption of RFR exposure guidelines concerned with thermal effects only which do not suffice to discharge the duty to take all practicable steps to the greatest extent possible to protect against a violation;
• Failure to ensure or safeguard a safe environment for human health.

A petitioner in the US case forcefully summarised the outcome :-

 ‘ This is a win for our children, our future, and our environment. The court’s decision should be a wake up call worldwide ‘

Please continue with your generous support! Thank you for sharing this appeal as widely as possible to encourage others to contribute.

https://actionagainst5g.org/

Dear Friends and Supporters

We must report to you that our first application to judicially review the subject of ever rising levels of radio frequency radiation and its potential harm to ourselves and the environment has been subject to a refusal by a judge. Without delay the amazing Michael Mansfield QC, and barristers Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett, have swiftly lodged a Renewal Notice seeking permission for a hearing. The Defendants were presented with evidence which it is their duty to consider – and have failed to do so.

Whilst this initial decision is disappointing it is not altogether surprising in the current climate. This judicial review is a challenge to the Defendants’ acts and omissions concerning the failure to engage with necessary and sufficient investigation of the dangers and health risks and harms arising from the existing, and the increasing public exposure to new forms of radiation. The claim is very clear – there is a weight and volume of scientific material and evidence of harmful effects that must be properly considered by the Defendants. It is deeply concerning that there is no ownership by any of the Defendants of the risks to be considered by increasing exposure to RFR. There is, as yet, an absence of scientific reasoning and analysis undertaken by or provided by the Defendants.

This is not a case of which scientific material is to be preferred, but the obligation that all relevant scientific material must be considered and evaluated by the Defendants, and cannot be a duty abrogated or delegated to a third-party. The simple point is that the Defendants have yet to give due consideration to the evidence of risks, but rather they delegate the national government’s duty to a single external body (ICNIRP). 

It remains an incontestable fact that ICNIRP has adopted an approach that (a) lacks long-term study; (b) allows tests for NO effects other than over an extremely short duration, and (c) focused on whether a thermal effect occurred in that short timespan of singular exposure. That does not reflect the actual environment of RFR being created around the public in this country; nor engage properly with the need for caution, the impact on the vulnerable, or the scientific evidence of harm already available and presented in this case. 

Our evidence plainly sets out the issues that need to be properly addressed, including that the government has not followed due process as noted above. There are disclosed certain deficiencies of reasoning, and serious questions and points raised that have not been answered.

Common to each of the Defendants’ decisions challenged in this case is that they are actions uninformed by an analysis by the United Kingdom of the presently available data and scientific knowledge concerning the risks to health from adopting these levels of radiation exposure.

As the infrastructure is continuing to be ‘rolled out’ across the country, near schools and hospitals, in residential and rural areas alike, life for many is increasingly challenging.  The weight and content of our evidence, and the implications that we have set out, indeed have serious implications for government and for the telecommunication industry.

We stand together with all of you, all over the country, all committed to the many initiatives that bring this to the attention of others, and standing firm in our intention to see the matter safely resolved. The health of a nation should not be disregarded for the possible benefit of the few. 

In the place of radiating electro-magnetic frequencies, we must radiate the light of wisdom and good intelligence, so that this planet and this nation will thrive. We are living through a time of mixed, confusing and often incorrect messages or are contending with the prospect of not being heard.  At the heart of this is our call for the arena to be open in which the evidence is reviewed for the safety of all and where proper argument is heard. We are determined to break through obstacles and resistance, and bring clarity for wise action to be taken. The outcome depends on honesty, integrity and truth. 

We very much need your support now as we go forward for the next stage in this legal process. 

Team AA5G so very much appreciate all you have done to get us and our fantastic, committed legal team, this far.  We will not waver in our determination to succeed. 

With our gratitude to you all for your ongoing support, we fight on!

Legal Action Against 5G

The Defendants are

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE: 

First Defendant

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,

FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS: 

Second Defendant

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DIGITAL CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT: 

Third Defendant

The Claimants are represented by Michael Mansfield QC, Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs LLP

The case concerns an important issue of public safety. It raises the risk to which members of the public, including particular vulnerable individuals, and children, are being exposed without having consented to or agreed to expose themselves to that risk; and without an adequate and proper consideration undertaken by the relevant safeguarding authorities of the creation of those man-made public health risks.

We provided documents containing evidence from a multitude of respected and eminent experts concerning the health effects of the technology used by 5G, and the attendant risks to the public and individuals, upon which the Defendants declined to act.

The Defendants cannot lawfully continue to ignore or overlook the evidence that indicates the existence of a risk that has not been quantified. To date there has been a failure to engage with this body of evidence, and an inappropriate attempt to delegate any assessment of risk to an external body – a body against which membership legitimate criticism of industry finance and conflict of interest is levelled.

The issues include: 

• the absence of due investigation of the nature and extent of the risks to the safety of individuals, and human health by the relevant United Kingdom authorities;
• the absence of appropriate measures, systems and safeguarding steps to address the identified risks or potential risks; and
• a failure to adopt and apply a precautionary principle, or informed foresight, to the exposure of non-consenting children and adults to a risk of harm.
• The law provides a framework that demonstrates the unlawfulness of the inaction and errors of the executive bodies we have challenged.
• Holding to account the executive or legislative authorities to comply with the law and legal duties is undoubtedly a proper and essential function for the Court, especially in the context of protection of individuals from harm that includes loss of life or serious injury.

The grounds are:

The Defendants are in breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 resulting from omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Defendants have failed to consider the best interests of children when considering formulating, updating or reviewing the appropriate approach to 5G policy and risk assessment for exposed children. In the alternative, they have failed to make this a primary consideration.

The Defendants are in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) (s149 EA 2010). There has been no equality assessment, within the meaning and terms of the PSED, to properly inform and be considered in decisions as to the risk posed by RFR and affecting for example approval of 5G generally and/or of permissible locations of 5G and/or of the policy to adopt ICNIRP guidelines.

The SSHSC is in breach of his statutory duty under s2A of the National Health Service Act 2006, either resulting from (a) unlawful delegation or abdication of the statutory function to an external private organisation; and/or (b) irrationally failing to take appropriate steps under this power and/or failing to exercise a discretion in accordance with the statutory purpose.

The Defendants have failed to take into account as a relevant consideration, and give due and proper consideration to, all the evidence, information and concerns which we have raised with them.

The Defendants have failed to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for the decision not to establish a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available.

THIS IS A LANDMARK CASE

The Claimants wish to thank all the many members of the public who have supported them including those that have written messages of encouragement, some of which have been heart wrenching;  who watch our updates on progress and the thousands who have given donations in support of this legal action. It is for those who have written letters, signed petitions and campaigned, the scientists, doctors and engineers that have put their names to appeals and all the many who have supported our work. It is for those who remain puzzled or uninformed but feel unwell or develop any of the many symptoms that are associated with or worsened by radiation. And it is for our shared environment that does not have a say but for which we, as responsible citizens, are custodians.

Meanwhile our work continues in earnest, and we wish to thank all of you for your continuing support. We will issue further information as this matter progresses.

27^th March 2021

Our lawyers have asked the Government: 

Why the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has decided not to review the available science and chosen instead to await a review by the WHO, the date of which is not known; 

why PHE has chosen to ignore the compelling evidence that RFR and 5G are harmful which we submitted to them, from UK and abroad;

why the Government has failed to undertake any significant studies on the impact upon children of regular or continuous exposure to RFR;

or in relation to the effect upon those with disabilities, or medical conditions, or those with medical or surgical implants? 

Where is the policy which demonstrates that the decision to roll out 5G has considered the public sector equality duty?

And taking into account those most vulnerable in our society, where is the UK’s competent authority charged with protecting the public from harm against RFR?

Thank you all so much for your continuing support, without which this vitally important work would not have been possible.

Statement from the legal team.

In the process of preparing this case, we needed to investigate certain matters during which alarming and dramatic further evidence has come to light. This new information has had to be properly considered and methodically put into a proper format in consultation with several experts, which has taken substantial time and effort. 

We have qualitatively moved from the threat of risk without proper assessment to the discovery by the claimants of actual damage being caused with every minute that goes by and a blatant failure by Government to recognise or respond to this by word or deed.

Thank you all for your patience whilst we have undertaken the necessary work.

We have now written to the Government’s lawyers with information which we assert provides significant evidence that the roll out of 5G, on top of existing levels of RFR, is already causing physical harm.  

We have provided the Government with case-specific scientific and medical evidence to support our claim, and have gathered witness testimony from people who have suffered serious adverse physical effects in areas where 5G is present.

We have also provided further submissions on the vast body of contemporaneous and emerging science which demonstrates that RFR is harmful to biological life and causes oxidative stress, which leads to risks to life, at much lower levels than those set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). 

ICNIRP is neither a reliable nor responsible body; its links to industry and lack of independence are clearly defined. For that reason alone it is wholly unreasonable for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to continue to rely on this private organisation.

The roll out of 5G, on top of the RFR which pervades throughout modern life comprising 2G, 3G, 4G, and Wi-Fi, is being pursued despite there having been no or no adequate tests on whether it is safe. We have reiterated our significant concerns that it is not safe and that the Government should halt any further roll out until it is demonstrated as causing no harm to biological life. 

We have reminded them that it is unreasonable and a breach of human rights for any Government to continue with the 5G roll out in these circumstances, and await their response which is due on or before 28th October.

We are very thankful for all your messages of support and your donations.  It would be helpful if you can continue to share news of the case using the link to the crowdjustice page and our website actionagainst5g.org, especially with those who are not yet aware of the harmful effects of radiation from mobile phones, 3G/4G/5G masts, and Wi-Fi routers.

Nothing should be more important to a responsible government than the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. But what do we have here? We have a government that admits that 5G is being tested by its deployment in ‘testbeds’ while contending that the increased radiation ‘should’ have no consequences for public health. ‘Should’ denotes no certainty. It signifies there are questions remaining. 

The word ‘should’ is not appropriate when discussing health and safety. The government ‘should’ follow due process but it is not doing so. 

The independent science has already shown that mobile radiation from masts and devices causes biological harm, including ‘clear evidence’ of cancer. The addition of 5G to the mix means both another layer of radiation on top of already toxic levels, in the form of low-frequency 5G, and new frequencies which have not been adequately tested, but which existing studies show can cause health issues. 

We are litigating this issue. Our case against the UK government is that due process is not being followed, that the risks are being entirely disregarded. This is a national public health issue. 

Dismissed by successive governments, the risk to health and safety is current, ongoing and will get worse. 

Before we move towards the government’s ‘ambition’ to turn our existence into an ‘Internet of Things’, the need is urgent for a robust and thorough examination of the health repercussions. 

Imposing 5G on an unsuspecting population amounts to an experiment when questions remain on the consequences to human health. Adopting a position of apparent ignorance is not excusable, it is indefensible when thousands of doctors and scientists have provided evidence of harm and signed countless appeals. Quite apart from the fact that the ICNIRP ‘guidance’ omits any reference to environmental or animal safety, here is a shortened version of the 1947 Nuremberg Code which states: 

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. 

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. 

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity. 

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. 

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. 

5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. 

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. 

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. 

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. 

9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible. 

10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. 

"Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949. 

With the emergence of 5G, we are faced with an exposure situation not accounted for by guidelines - where many emissions, of different structures (phase, waveform, frequency, etcetera) occur randomly and simultaneously and can even superimpose in ways that have significance for living systems. 

Our legal case against the government maintains a focussed position in defining the core issue: Health and safety. 

Dear Friends and Supporters

Wow! What fantastic support and great comments, thank you all. As so many of you have correctly said, this is dangerous, untested and you do not want it for yourselves, your children or your grandchildren. And of course, you were not asked; it is being imposed by a very rich, and (apparently) very ignorant, but very persuasive industry in whose clutches we must assume our decision makers sit. What happened to democracy? And what happened to the mainstream media? (Rhetorical questions).

But we know that the industry does know because it has gone to a great deal of trouble keeping what it knows away from the public. And there are some quiet stirrings in the media. The radiation emissions from those huge masts will not be avoided no matter who you are, including those who refuse to write about it or want to believe it will not harm them.

How interesting that discussing the facts about health connections to radiation is considered dangerous. Dangerous to whom? If there are no dangers, why would the conversation be closed down?

The Council of the European Union, [Brussels, 9 June 2020 (OR. en), 8711/20 Shaping Europe's Digital Future - Council Conclusions (9 June 2020)] “EXPRESSES the importance of fighting against the spread of misinformation related to 5G networks, with special regard to false claims that such networks constitute a health threat …”

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8711-2020-INIT/en/pdf

Given the quite remarkable attempts to close down all discussion, along with the gigantic masts appearing, it may slowly become apparent to those who have had no idea what is about to assault them, that something is very wrong.They may, with your help, learn a little more, especially when a recent briefing for the European Parliament in March 2020 states:

“Questions remain unanswered as to what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it has impacts on human health and environment, whether it is secure…"

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf

How can both the above statements be true? Either there are unanswered ‘questions’ or there are no questions but merely ‘misinformation’ and ‘false claims’. Which is it? One has to ask, does the European Union know what the briefing to the European Parliament is saying? How about our government?

So, although we have been quiet that does not mean inaction on our part. Tempting though it is to explore all the current concerns that so many of us share, we are staying focused on the parameters of our case against the levels of radio frequency radiation. Our legal team has the evidence and it is working with a global network of lawyers and scientific experts. The irradiation programme is global and the strategies employed are coordinated even though manifestly mismanaged as is evidenced by the above conflicting statements.

We will expose 5G for what it is. Stay with us, we’re on a mission. We have all of you to thank for your incredible support in words and for your generosity in funds. Blessings.

Actionagainst5g legal team.

Dear Amazing Supporters, huge thanks. Together we can achieve great things, this really is teamwork and your part in it is crucial and so very much appreciated.

As of today, thanks to your support with over £90,000 we are well on the way to our target of £150,000! 

As a result, the case is progressing. 

On  May 22 2020 our legal team sent a Letter Before Action to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Secretary of State for Environment,  Health and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sports.  The Departments also received from the legal team A Review of the Health Risks of Radiofrequency Radiation Employed in 5G Technology and the Implications for UK Policymaking.

The Letter of Action and Review were the first steps stating that the government is in breach of our human rights by ignoring the evidence of harm associated with 5G. The evidence does not go away because it is not looked at. In fact, it grows day by day. 

Our brilliant legal team, led by Michael Mansfield QC, continues to gather solid evidence. Reports and documents are meticulously and rigorously assembled. This careful preparation is the key to success and your patience with this process is much appreciated. 

Please continue to share our website and bring this funding campaign to any who do not yet know about our legal action. 

If you have a message offering help, we cannot access your details from this crowd justice page to thank you or respond so, again, please contact us directly at actionagainst5g.org.

We will be back in touch with updates as soon as they arise. Again, your patience as the wheels of justice turn, is much appreciated. Your comments are inspiring and encouraging, and we read every one. In the meantime, rest assured, progress is afoot. 

We send you massive gratitude from all of us at actionagainst5g. 

To all of you, a big thank you. Together your generous donations have now reached over £60,000. It’s very gratifying to see this level of support for this case that is so essential. Together we will go forward.

We welcome all your wonderful and generous messages, your contributions, information and good wishes; all of which have demonstrated to us your strength of feeling. They are incredibly encouraging.

The initial £50,000 was needed to secure the action. In the event of not achieving this target, all donations would have been returned and the case could not have proceeded.

We sent a letter before action to the Government last month. The Government lawyers have acknowledged our letter but have not substantively responded yet. Due to Covid-19 they asked for an extension, which we reluctantly accepted. In the meantime the legal team are working around the clock to prepare the case, assembling the expert research and collating evidence.

Our two junior barristers are working at half their normal hourly rate, which demonstrates their commitment, supported by a full time assistant, and we also have a full time legal researcher working pro bono. As we gather our funds towards £150,000 we will be continuing to develop our grounds and evidence for the case. Whilst we will be seeking an order which caps liability for the costs of the defendants in the event that we lose the case, we need to ensure that we are able to continue the claim in the event that this is not granted. This is why we need to continue to raise funds to meet our stretch target.

CrowdJustice data protection measures mean that we do not have access to full contact details for those of you who have donated and kindly offered to help us. If you would like a response, please use the Contact Us form on our website.

Your continuing support is vital, especially by reaching out to others who may know little, so please tell them and give them a link to our website and the Crowd justice page. With you supporting us we can achieve a new reality: one where our government pays attention.

With great thanks

 From all at ActionAgainst 5G

https://actionagainst5g.org/

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/legalactionagainst5g/