UK Legal Cases and Council Actions – significance and how to use them.
Phiremedical.org – Educational Health Care Plan awarded to school girl with EHS.
Summary. Useful takeaway ?
Springgay V Brighton – Planning Judicial Review – Council lost – concession stamped by High court.
Summary. Useful takeaway ? Link to case.
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.
Useful takeaway ? Link to case.
IOW – Planning judicial review. The barrister is now under official complaint
Summary? Link to case.
RRR – Objectors Rights and the EECC. McDougall and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and another (Respondents)
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 Science & Innovation and Technology – Case UKSC/2025/0071 &Thomas V Cheltenham UKSC/2025/0066 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
Summary. Useful takeaway ?
N McDougall & Karen Churchill – Court of European Rights
Summary. Useful takeaway . Longer blog here
Planning Inspectorate Rulings
Council Refusal on Health Grounds (Mendip)
Summary. Useful takeaway , case link
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.
APP/C1625/W/25/3360512 The Cross, Nelson Street, Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2HL
More ‘5G’ masts are being stopped around the country every day, but what matters about this particular Appeal Decision is that it has identified health concerns. It has been a huge challenge to get this particular material considered acknowledged previously, because of the stranglehold of NPPF para 123. You can read the Decision here: para 14-17.
Although the rulings and appeals have been complex, the Thomas V Cheltenham Borough court case has helped to support objecting on health grounds. The officers reasoning for supporting concerns around health was very interesting, para 13 where she quotes:
“A previous prior approval at the site has been subject to a High Court and Court of Appeal Judgement, specifically in relation to the impacts of a similar development on the health of nearby residents. The High Court judgement states that guidelines expressly state that EMF’s can cause harm by interfering with medical implants, and such issues were beyond the scope of the guidelines. Therefore, requesting additional information regarding the EMF’s and potential impact on nearby residents with medical implants would not involve setting health guidelines different from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure.”
Gofundme link to support Karen and Neils efforts on UK legal challenges
New blog page: coming soon Summary of UK legal actions and roadmap
•New portal for Mast planning application comments – ‘Esthers list’ live since August 2024
Technical
Reminder about ‘fake 5G’ and ‘real 5G’. In the UK we currently still have ‘fake 5G’. The real 5G is mmWave and phased array – about which there has been so much further concern since 2020.
mmWave phased arrays are a key technology building block for making 5G successful. Phased array antennas can focus mmWave signals into narrow beams that increase their effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) and overcome path loss.
Health and Research
New WHO-Funded Study Reports High Certainty Of The Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation To Cancer In Animals In response, leading scientists from the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields(ICBE-EMF) are calling for immediate policy action to protect public health and the environment, warning that further delay could have serious consequences amid the global surge in the use of wireless communication devices.
James C. Lin denounces the lack of health safety in mobile phone Standards – July 2025. Professor James C. Lin, world expert in bioelectromagnetism, influential former member of ICNIRP(2004-2016) and winner of an IEEE 2025 Award, publishes (July 21, 2025) a key article in Frontiers in Public Health. In it, he denounces the weakening of radio frequency (RF) exposure standards by ICNIRP, the influence of the “military-industrial complex”, and the connivance of global regulators. These findings confirm those of Phonegate Alert, highlighting the choice of mobile phone manufacturers to endanger the health of users for the benefit of the connectivity of their devices.
Health and safety practices and policies concerning human exposure to RF/microwave radiation There are substantial incongruities and inconsistencies in the ICNIRP guidelines and IEEE/ICES standards. Furthermore, apart from the guideline’s irregularities, the biased assessments of the scientific database and less trustworthy appraisals such as many of the recent WHO sponsored systematic reviews make it difficult to reach a judgment with confidence. Some of the safety guidelines are irrelevant, debatable, and absent of scientific justification from the standpoint of safety and public health protection.
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Emissions and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Infants: A Prospective Cohort Study Even after adjusting for low birth weight, we found that higher levels of radiation were associated with poorer outcomes for cognitive domains of development such as problem solving, and personal-social areas. Thus, there is a need to monitor the neuro-development of children in whom the RF-EMF radiations are expected to be higher (such as very close to cell phone towers, too many gadgets in the house).
Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields reduce bumble bee visitation to flowers In our work, we found that electromagnetic fields can indeed influence foraging bumble bees and reduce their flower visitation rates. Urban areas are important habitats for pollinators and the electromagnetic fields will continue to play a large and important role in the human environment.
Legal
UKSupreme 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 cases (below) 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 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) application.
Right, Regulations, Remedies (N McDougall & K Churchill V Dept of Health, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), Dept of Scinence & Innovation and Technology – UKSC 0071
The Environmental Health Trust (EHT) has filed a petition urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to comply with the August 13, 2021 federal court mandate in the case Environmental Health Trust v. FCC.
EHT’s petition implores the FCC to comply with the mandate and to encourage the wireless industry to start “competing on safety.” EHT highlighted the scientific, medical, and policy developments which have occurred in the four years since the court issued its mandate—increasing the urgency with which the commission must act. In order to protect children, the general population, the environment, and U.S. leadership in the wireless industry, EHT intends to take further legal action to enforce the mandate if the commission fails to comply with the law as established by the court.
