The government did not provide a substantial response to the EECC submission filed on December 13th September 2023, so the Judicial Review application was crafted and filed with the Administrative Court on December 21st.

After the two potential defendants, Secretary of State for Health & Social Care (SofSHSC) and the Secretary for State for Levelling Up Housing & Communities (SofSLUHC), negotiated an extended deadline for replying to the 13th September submission, both failed to comment or counter the claims asserted in the submission.

Instead, they questioned whether they were the correct defendants, and suggested that it was possibly the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) who are responsible.

This position if it was true, should have been asserted when the submission was initially filed.

Their own particular obligations are clearly the subject-matter of the submission and their legal representatives formally acknowledged receipt of the submission and negotiated and extension in order to respond to it, so it is unacceptable that they then chose not to respond.

Certain elements of the submission were re-iterated with a reminder that the EECC submission had been sent to DSIT earlier in October. SofSLUHC and SofSHSC declined to respond to this final two-day opportunity to provide clarity.

This left Neil and Karen no other option other than to become claimants and pursue a Judicial Review against the both the SofSLUHC and SoSHSC, so they crafted and filed an application with the Administrative Court who sealed it on December 20th.

The Christmas and New year bank holidays gave them defendants reason to apply for another extension to respond to the sealed order, so a response is now expected by January 25th.

This case is citizen led i.e. there are no lawyers involved, Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill are representing themselves.

Please support them via the gofundme page as they now need cover their costs to continue with this vital challenge. 

Contact them via if you would like more information. Updates on the case will be posted on the gofundme page, on, and on,

Printable Flyer to share:

Keep on reading afterwards.

Further detail:

Many dedicated campaigners have exposed inconsistencies and procedural failures across different Councils, all precisely documented within the submission. This is an important aspect of this challenge because the courts can address procedural failure in relation to risk reconciliation whereas they are slow to engage with the science about the risk itself, as was seen in the Actionagainst5G case.

Currently, regulation is a scam. The ICNIRP guidelines are just guidance, as confirmed by Public Health England solicitors in August 2019, and yet they are being treated as a standard by local authorities. Risk reconciliation, which should be happening at the local level, is not happening.

The government states that involuntary exposure to wireless radiation is regulated by planning policy. Current planning policy effectively restricts the local authorities to not from performing any active risk assessment even though that function is directly assigned to them within the EECC. The government should have empowered and obligated the local authorities to perform risk reconciliation when the EECC was transposed into UK law in December 2020.

Even though the health implications of the transposition were raised by the AA5G legal team at the time, it is only now that Neil and Karen have collated enough evidence of multiple failures and are now in a strong position to make this challenge.

The Mendip Planning Board’s refusal of a 5G mast on health grounds is important evidence within the submission as it demonstrates that there is a reason and a legal pathway to refuse 5G masts on health grounds.

It demonstrates how the NPPF policy 118 can be superseded

The  Mendip Council’s planning case officer’s assumption that if the Planning Board solely apply government policy their EECC legal obligations would be fulfilled, was wrong. Case Officers across the country are making this wrong assumption.

The submission asserts that Telecoms’ specific environmental impact statements are necessary so that the local authorities can perform their EECC directly assigned risk reconciliation function meaningfully. Planning policy needs to be updated to acknowledge that requirement.

The power of this case is the emphasis on procedure and the government’s multiple failures to clarify the local authorities’ jurisdictional obligations;  the consequence of not doing so should be apparent to the judge.

Neil has carefully researched the 2018 EU Brexit Law to file this unique judicial review, as this law provided a three year window to make a challenge to restore rights from improperly enacted EU directives.

Such a challenge is only possible if there is an “Of a kind” legal case already having taken place. Neil identified such a case [comma taken out]and has carefully researched the meaning of “Of a kind”. This term is being hotly debated by esteemed barristers, such as Jack Williams, and is a matter of interpretation.

Pursuing this case is our last chance to force the government to fully implement local risk reconciliation and to restore our right to have our objections fully taken into account.

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.

Neil and Karen have worked voluntarily for four years, with some very welcome support from some close friends and campaigner colleagues. They now need wider support, as they need to ‘up their game’ with some of their expenses being met from campaigner donations.

Please use the gofundme page to offer them a donation.