activistpost.com

Note: Source spelling and grammar (UK) is intact.

“Blindly following policy is not enough to prevent avoidable harm.”

Introduction:

Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill have capitalized on a unique opportunity to demand the UK government introduce proper 5G risk assessments, beyond councils solely applying ICNIRP exposure guidelines, by utilizing the law which safeguards rights as the UK exits from the European Union. This is bound by a December 31, 2023 deadline.

Glossary:

EECC – European Electronic Communications Code – “ DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/1972 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2018“

Council – UK Local government with autonomous statutory functions

DOH – Department of Health and Social Care

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessments

Judicial Review – Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached

ICNIRP – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection

Letter Before Action – A letter before action (sometimes known as a ‘letter before claim’) is a formal letter putting a person on notice that court proceedings may be brought against them

Litigant in Person – In Wales and the UK, an individual, company or organisation who goes to court without legal representation from a solicitor or barrister.

LPA – Local planning authority

NPPF- National Planning Policy Framework

Quash – reject or void, especially by legal procedure

Background: September 2023 Challenge Under EU Withdrawal Act

A challenge was submitted as a “Letter Before Action” in September 2023. (A letter before action is a formal letter putting a person on notice that court proceedings may be brought against them.)

The submission seeks to activate evidence-based decision making, help stop sham regulation, help activate proper risk assessment, and remove the ICNIRP guideline stranglehold, as ICNIRP is not protective of all people in all circumstances.

(According to former ICNIRP member professor James C. Lin, “the revised guidelines do not adequately protect children, workers, or the public from exposure to RF radiation or people with sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices and systems.”)

Read the blog about the September submission: “New Legal Challenge – UK Govt: Fail to Enact Public Health & Environmental Obligations Within European Electronics Communications Code” – Safe Tech International

Rfinf.co.uk is reporting on this case.

Changes in UK Law Favouring Access to Justice for “Litigants in Person,” and “Exit from UK” Regulations

Ex-UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher revolutionised legal procedures by appointing Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former Scottish judge, to bring civil court procedures into the 21st century. Archaic procedures were abandoned and access to justice shifted in favour of litigants in person, making the procedural ploys of lawyers less likely to interfere with justice being seen to be done.

The safeguards that that are available to protect the rights of citizens after the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, are similarly obscure as Brexit changed the constitutional relationship between the Government, Parliament and the Judiciary.

So this latest Judicial Review takes advantage of both the shift initiated by Margaret Thatcher and the unique situation afforded by the EU Exit law.

“The Brexit Law provides the opportunity for the UK government to quash ‘conduct’ which infringes on public rights.“

The ‘Exit from the EU’ legislation set a deadline of December 31st, 2023, by which any challenge attempting to restore rights infringed by an incomplete transposition of EU directives had to be filed.

December 2023, UK Government Did Not Respond to the September Filing

The UK government delayed throughout September and October, avoiding addressing the 81-page submission in any way. They failed to respond, or to apply the twenty-one remedies within.

The remedies seek to restore the right to public health protection and the rights of the public to contribute to mast and small cell siting decision making. The submission asserts that these rights are being infringed due to the incomplete December 2020 EECC transposition.

The two potential defendants, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, negotiated an extended deadline to issue a reply, but both failed to provide a substantive response in time.

Despite the outlined remedies clearly falling within their remit, the Department of Health and Department of Levelling Up responded by suggesting it is the Department of Science Innovation and Technology (DSIT) who are responsible.

DSIT had also been provided the EECC submission in October but had failed to acknowledge it’s receipt.

This was pure prevarication as the Departments could have and should have determined whether they were the correct potential defendants before accepting “the letter before action” and negotiating an extended deadline to reply.

Neil and Karen assumed that the UK government, by not responding, were positively taking a ‘neutral stance,’ which they are permitted to do.

When a neutral stance is taken, the UK government cannot defend their position. It becomes the Court’s full responsibility and obligation to apply ‘EU exit law’ deciding whether the rights have, in fact, been infringed, and whether their suggested remedies should be applied.

Judicial Review Application with the Administrative Court Filed on December 21st

The lack of response by the UK government left Neil and Karen no other option other than to file a Judicial Review Application with the Administrative Court in time to meet the December 31 “EU exit” deadline.

See the 31-page redacted sealed claim, served on the Defendents on December 21, 2023, here.

January 2024, UK Government Finally Responded by Posing Four Questions, After Receiving the Sealed Judicial Review

Since receiving the Court sealed claim on December 21st, the UK government departments have now declared they do intend to contest the claim and the court has granted them an extension to January 25th, 2024 to do so.

On January 12th the Department of Health & Social Care (DoH) posed four questions about the September filing which give the impression that the purpose and the significance of the challenge was incomprehensible.

Neil and Karen acting as ‘litigants in person’ provided the requested clarifications and are now awaiting receipt of the full defence by the January 25th deadline set by the Administrative Court.

These questions could have, and should have, been raised from mid-September onwards!

Neil and Karen had one week to respond to the January 12th request. See their 10-page document and complete responses here.

Four Questions Posed by DoH

1. What public health/environmental protections have been neglected? And, which ‘entity’ (i.e., Government Department) is being held responsible for the flawed enactment of the protections?

2. “Please particularise what “conduct” is being alleged and referred to.

3.  Why is both the transposition of the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) on 21 December 2020; as well as the 3 November 2023 ‘neutral stance’ being challenged?

4. What legal arguments support the claim that Councils act under the policy direction of the Department of Levelling Up to fulfil the public health protection obligations placed on the Department of Health?

Neil and Karen’s Replies (in Brief)

1. The ‘entity’ is the UK Government as it agreed to bring the EECC into effect through the competency (ie: the powers and authority) of the twin Departments as national regulatory authorities.

2. The submission asserts that regulation is failing, the joint decisions and failures to act were collectively termed Government ‘conduct’ in the Judicial Review application. The Brexit Law, provides the opportunity for the UK government to quash ‘conduct’ which infringes public rights, which the submission asserts. In this case the rights are the right to public health protection and the right to influence local Councils decisions on mast siting and small cell deployment. ‘Beyond the explanations provided in the letter before claim, it is up to the Court to determine whether or not Departmental conduct was lawful or not.’

3. The flawed transposition of the EECC in December 2020 and the decision to take a ‘neutral stance’ to the September submission are inextricably linked. The rights which are being protected by the challenge can only be restored by the UK government departments quashing their conduct and applying the 21 remedies in the submission.

4. It is ‘imprudent and unnecessary’ to offer another summary explanation of the legal arguments – as they are properly explained in the claim, and in the descriptions of the legislation relied upon in the detailed submission.

Neil and Karen are comfortable that the Court will be satisfied that they have exhausted all avenues to restore rights, and they are now preparing to receive the government’s defence by January 25th.

We know many of you have already donated handsomely to legal actions, but this case has European-wide precedent-setting potential, so do please support them via this GoFundMe page.

All donations are welcome. Little donations made by many will help Neil and Karen to work systematically and efficiently to secure this vital case. They have worked full time on a volunteer basis up to this point.

Please contact [email protected] if you would like more information about the case. Sign up for email updates here.

“Thousands are left susceptible to short-term symptoms such as headaches, nausea, tinnitus, dizziness, sleep disturbances and concentration issues, as well as an increased risk of long-term effects including possibly cancer. EHS was recognised as a disability by the Upper Tribunal (High Court equivalent, so precedent setting) in June 2022 when an education health care plan was awarded to a UK child. EHS has also been recognised as a condition warranting early ill health retirement. Link. Despite these awards, the government is slow to recognise the condition; they mainly infer the symptoms are psychosomatic and deem mitigation of exposure unnecessary. We seek justice and protection for all citizens, especially those suffering from Electrohypersensitivity (EHS), a condition not fully recognised by the UK government as they deem mitigation of exposure to wireless radiation unnecessary. We now need cover our costs to continue with this vital challenge. We very much appreciate your support.” “If successful, local authorities will be obligated to evaluate and fully account for evidence of risks of harm to the public and environment, so the case creates the opportunity to put non-thermal effects back on the table when decisions about 5G infrastructure are made.”– EECC SUBMISSION NEWS – RFInfo

“The case creates the opportunity to put non-thermal effects back on the table when decisions about 5G infrastructure are made.”

The website RFinfo.com.UK provides news updates and useful templates for UK campaigners to demand that councils ‘take fully into account’ all the evidence of risks to health and the environment. Join their email list here.

ActionAgainst5G is also reporting on this case. Karen Churchill is second of three claimants on the AA5G case, now being taken to the European Court of Human Rights.