5G appeal comes to court

You may remember that back in October I posted about the case brought by Action Against 5G against the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Digital Culture Media and Sport. Their claim was that the government’s actions in authorising and promoting 5G are a breach of human rights in that they are failing to protect the public from the health risks of 5G technology.

After various legal to-ings and fro-ings Action Against 5G’s appeal came to court on Monday and Tuesday of this week, headed up by the leading KC Michael Mansfield widely known for representing the families in the Grenfell Tower, Lockerbie, Hillsborough, the Ballymurphy Massacre and Stephen Lawrence cases.

To recap briefly Action Against 5G’s case is that:

That the government has thus far failed to:

• take into account the extensive evidence showing that radiofrequency radiation from masts and wireless devices puts health and life at risk
• carry out a full and independent examination of the risks
• properly inform the public of the dangers so the public can decide how to protect themselves

Instead:

• the government continues to adopt guidelines which the independent scientific research shows is unsafe for humans, animals, and the environment

And this matters because:

• 5G will add significantly to the emissions we already have from mobile phone masts, mobile phones, Wi-Fi, wearable devices, smart meters, and other ‘smart’ devices.
• This issue concerns all citizens.
• The consequence of inaction could be serious and irreversible damage.
  

The appeal

I could not be there for the first day in court but I was for the second day (along with about 100 others in a packed public gallery) and so for the summing up. Setting aside the legalise, the government’s counsel maintained that:

• The government follows the March 2020 guidelines laid down by the ICNIRP (the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection). ICNIRP was originally set up in 1998 but reviews its guidelines periodically.
• The ICNIRP at no point states that radio and electromagnetic frequencies are safe and they accept that there is a possibility that they could be associated with adverse health effects. However, they maintain that the balance of scientific evidence suggests that they are not damaging.
• In this regard they do not differentiate between 3G, 4G, 5G, WiFi or Bluetooth.
  
• When specifically questioned on research directly related to the possible health effects of 5G, the government’s counsel admitted that so little research has been done into the safety or possible health effects of 5G that it is impossible to draw any conclusions.
• Nota Bene Whatever ICNIRP may hold to, there is a very significant body of scientific opinion which does not agree with that position and which cites a now extremely substantial body of research which makes it clear that RF/EMF can and does have adverse effects on human and animal health and that of the environment. There are also a growing number of national and local governments and authorities who are mindful of this research and have chosen to take a more precautionary stance with regard to RF/EMF emissions in general

However, this is not relevant to 5G which was the focus of the appeal. As regards 5G:

• The government contend that even though they are not claiming that 5G is safe, and they admit that so little research had been done into the safety or possible health effects of 5G that it is impossible to draw any conclusions – they still maintain that the roll out of 5G does not present any risk to human health.
  
• Action Against 5G, through their counsel, maintain that the government are in breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – as a result of 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. In other words they are:

• • Actively promoting the roll out of a technology that they do not know to be safe and about which they themselves admit there is too little information to be able to assess whether or not it is safe.
  • Are failing to inform the population at large of any possible risks that this techonology might present so as to allow them to make an informed choice as to whether they wish to subject themselves to those risks.
  • By rolling out 5G nationwide they are subjecting the population at large to this technology without their consent having been sought.

The arguments made, the judge has now retired to consider the evidence. Watch this space…..

NB. Further longer accounts covering day one of the hearing are available here and here.

Meanwhile, for more see the Action Against 5G site and their CrowdFunding site.

 

* Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
ARTICLE 2
Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for whichthis penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape
of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot
or insurrection.
ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.