UK Legal Cases and Council Actions – significance and how to use them.
Phiremedical.org – Educational Health Care Plan awarded to school girl with EHS.
Springgay V Brighton – Planning Judicial Review – Council lost – concession stamped by High court.
Action Against 5G – Angell, Rock and Churchill Versus the Dept of Health, Judicial Review against governments failure to risk assess vulnerable groups, case included evidence of multiple people’s radiation ‘burns’ symptoms in London and expert reports about the inadequacy of the ICNIRP guideline to protect children and those with EHS. The case proceeded on reduced grounds regarding the duty to inform the public and the duty to monitor exposures.
IOW – Planning judicial review. The barrister is now under official complaint
RRR – Objectors Rights and the EECC
Thomas V Cheltenham
Supreme Court rejects two related 5G Regulation Cases
This is a clear breach of human rights — and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is now the only place left where the truth might be acknowledged.
In both the Right, Regulations, Remedies Case (N McDougall & K Churchill V Dept of Health, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), Dept of Scinence & Innovation and Technology – Case UKHSC 00071 &Thomas V Cheltenham UKHSC 00066 the government and the courts have:
- Denied us a fair and public hearing (Article 6)
- Ignored health impacts on our homes and private lives (Article 8)
- Blocked access to and scrutiny of risk information (Article 10).
- Left us without any effective remedy (Article 13)
The government still has one last chance to act. Under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the government have until June 2026 to put existing EECC public-health duties into effect. We are calling on them to use those powers now to resolve the conflict between Court of Appeal rulings — in Thomas v Cheltenham, the EECC was ruled part of UK law; in our case, it was ruled “not part of English law.”
Until they do, we will press ahead with our ECHR application.
V. Lyrae V Somerset Council
N McDougall & Karen Churchill – Court of European Rights
Longer blog here
Planning Inspectorate Rulings
Council – Refusal on Health Grounds (Mendip)
Below that a heading.. And a list of blogs… and templates
How to Best Use the rulings when generally campaigning or objecting to masts to your advantage
What is a Planning Judicial Review ?
Exclusion zones – the MBNL document and the 500m Setback evidence
How the ‘Counter Orthodox’ arguments give you strength when informing the councillors – pressing for lawful decision making precisely is powerful
Breaking the grip of ICNIRP
Caution – Beware of over generalising the wins and losses
Microwave hearing exposure limit – Report exposures greater than 4.34 V/m by filing a statutory nuisance complaint.
Report your tinnitus with medical report and ask for council to ensure their decision making accounts for this limit when siting small cells and masts.
