Search
  • Ocean M

Legal Action Against 5G led by Michael Mansfield QC



Legal Action Against 5G led by Michael Mansfield QC

have recently lodged their case against the government


https://actionagainst5g.org/



JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS LODGED IN THE HIGH COURT


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:

  1. 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;

  2. the absence of appropriate measures, systems and safeguarding steps to address the identified risks or potential risks; and

  3. 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.

  4. The law provides a framework that demonstrates the unlawfulness of the inaction and errors of the executive bodies we have challenged.

  5. 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



0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All