5G - Suspend and review rollout of 5G infrastructure

Part 4 of 4 (cont'd final)

In the government's response to the initial consultation, at point 62 (page 29 of the report) it states "... The majority of personal respondents expressed concerns in relation to in-principle opposition to the deployment of 5G infrastructure, in particular on grounds relating to public health concerns, and the effects of EMF radiation on the environment, including on wildlife populations." In the summary of this report, at point 5 (page 4) it states "....Having considered the responses to the consultation, we are satisfied that there is evidence to demonstrate that the proposed reforms would have a positive impact..... we will ensure that the appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards are in place to mitigate the impact of new mobile infrastructure...". At point 10 (page 5) it states "In developing the technical consultation, we will work with mobile industry representatives .... including... Ofcom*....."

Part 4 of 4 (cont'd 2)

I will be in touch soon with the details of the new fundraising page on Crowdjustice and with my comments on the Technical Consultation document so that you can submit your own responses asap.
Yours sincerely,

Jessica Learmond-Criqui

* You may recall that the Government's response to this initial consultation was published in a report in July 2020 which is below:

August 2019 Consultation (Proposed reforms to development rights to support rollout of 5G) - Government response link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902836/Government_Response_Mobile_Planning_Consultation.pdf

Part 4 of 4 (cont'd 1)

This continuing legal activity will have costs and to that end, I will be setting up a new fundraising page to address those costs. We would be grateful for your continued support in relation to those costs. I hope that you will be able to continue to support these endeavours as generously as you have done in the past and thank you all for your fantastic support so far.

If there are no other opportunities for legal challenge, any funds raised which are not used will be donated to the charity ES-UK.info or other similar charity. Many of you will know of es-uk which can be found at http://www.es-uk.info/ which provides:

“unbiased and balanced information to help those who have become sensitive to mobile and cordless phones, their masts, wifi, and a multitude of common everyday electrical appliances”.

Part 4 of 4

This opportunity gives a second bite at the cherry. Our barrister, David Wolfe QC, continues to advise our claimant on this matter and has suggested that we invite you all to put in responses.

If there are particular impacts in certain areas, eg, residential areas, areas close to schools etc, then those should be identified.

Depending on how the government then deals with all of that information, we might have a chance at a further legal challenge.

I will be reviewing the documents in the Technical Consultation and will circulate shortly my responses. You will be welcome to base your responses using mine as a guide.

We will be working with our barrister to review the government’s continuing response and to obtain legal advice on potentials to challenge.

Part 3 of 4

In refusing permission to proceed to judicial review, the Court of Appeal judge referenced this from the Government’s consultation response document)*:

“We will undertake a technical consultation on the detail of the proposals, including appropriate environmental protections and other safeguards, prior to amending the existing legislation and will reassess whether there would be a positive or negative, direct or indirect, impact on people with protected characteristics, and update the Public Sector Equalities Duty assessment as necessary.”

Consistent with that, the Technical Consultation document says this (in paragraph 84 and then Question 11):

“Considering the technical detail of the proposals, we would welcome views on the potential impact of the matters raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?”

Part 2 of 4

The technical consultation seeks views on how to implement the proposals consulted on in August 2019 to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage and is below. Comments have to be in by 14 June, 2021:

Current Technical Consultation link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation

Part 1 of 4

Dear All,

Update – 28.5.21

As you know, we applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to proceed to judicial review having been refused permission in the High Court. We have now heard from the Court of Appeal which has refused permission to proceed to judicial review.

This is disappointing news, without doubt. It means that the challenge which we made to the government’s decision to remove planning permission requirements from the siting of masts and antennae was unsuccessful.

But, that is not the end of the story. Some of you know that the efforts to obtain justice for those who suffer from the effects of man-made radiation is a journey. We have been pushed back on the first step on that journey but we are continuing on that journey.

The government’s consultation on the removal of planning permission has another layer - a step 2 - they have started a technical consultation on how they are going to remove this planning permission.

Other legal press around this case:
Jessica Learmond-Criqui and Phillip Watts provided a consumer piece explaining to parents how the 5G rollout could impact our health in Toddle About.
Jessica Learmond-Criqui used the 5G Judicial Review to outline how to get a new disability recognised in the law in Solicitors Journal.
Jessica Learmond-Criqui’s involvement in challenging the government over its 5G strategy was summarised in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary.

Below is a summary of much of the legal press around this case:

David Wolfe discussed why judicial reviews are so essential to our legal system in The Times.
Jessica Learmond-Criqui outlined the process of persuading the courts to recognise a new illness in Litigation Futures.
David Wolfe explained what local governments need to know about consultation responses in Local Government Lawyer.
In New Law Journal, Jessica Learmond-Criqui examined the government’s decision-making process in relation to the 5G networks. She noted that, shockingly, the ministers making the decision about the 5G rollout were not shown the evidence (collected through a public consultation in 2019) that 5G can negatively impact our health. The piece first published in December and then again in the February edition.

In the meantime, we have had many articles published in the legal press. The link to the latest article in Toddle About is below:

https://toddleabout.co.uk/news/could-the-roll-out-of-5g-negatively-affect-our-health/

Thanks as ever for your support. We are continuing to raise funds which are very much depleted at present. Do please make donations to the below so that we have enough funds to, at the very least, pay our barrister going forward:

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-judicial-review-2020/

Just a quick update on the legal action. As you know, we were refused permission to proceed to judicial review in the High Court. Our QC advised that we should appeal and we filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in December.

The Court sealed our notice which I received last week. We are awaiting a translation of the transcript of the judgement in the High Court. Once that is ready, perhaps another week or two, then the papers will be sent to the judge.

The judge will make a ruling on the papers only and without a hearing.

If we are successful in the Court of Appeal, the government may appeal to the Supreme Court. If they do not, then we will have a full hearing for judicial review in the High Court. I will keep you posted.

Today, we had a hearing in the High Court on our Judicial Review application. Judge Sir Ross Cranston refused our application in this round. Having discussed the position with our barrister, we have taken steps to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal as soon as possible.

You will recall that we had issued proceedings against the Secretaries of State of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) on the grounds that:

• the decision was not based on compliance with the requirements of a lawful consultation;
• they breached their ‘public sector equality duty’ (“PSED”) under the Equality Act 2010 by not engaging with the fact that particular sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation, including from 5G in particular, amounts to a disability (EHS) for the purposes of the PSED.

We need funds to continue to fight this case. Do continue to donate funding.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-judicial-review-2020/

Update on legal campaign (cont'd) - final text

Please go to either of the pages below and donate what you can, including making a monthly contribution so that the fund can be built up to address these issues and issues similar to these to achieve the overall objective. Even a regular monthly donation of say £10 or more a month will move us towards the target.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-judicial-review-2020/

Please tell your friends and spread the word.