High Court Blocks Crowdfunded Legal Challenge to UK 5G Rollout

The High Court (King’s Bench Divison) has once again blocked a questionable crowd-funded legal challenge by the Action Against 5G campaign, which had been attempting to disrupt the UK rollout of 5G (mobile broadband) over fears that the government was being “unlawful” in “failing to protect the public from the health risks from 5G.“

In case anybody has forgotten, the outbreak of COVID-19 seemed to fuel a bizarre new conspiracy theory, which saw supporters ignore accepted science in the mistaken belief that wireless 5G mobile (radio) signals had either helped to create or directly transmit the virus – both conspiracy theories lacked any credible scientific foundation (we’ve covered this before in our 5G fact check).

NOTE: At the time of writing, the AA5G crowdfunding page has raised £194,901 of their £250,000 stretch target from 4,084 pledges.

Leaving aside the fact that a biological virus couldn’t be more different from electromagnetic radio waves, or that COVID-19 spread just as fast in countries and areas with no 5G at all. The one sure way to actually hurt people during a very real global pandemic is by spreading fear and conspiracy theories about a vital communications network, which also encouraged various attacks against telecoms infrastructure and engineers.

However, unsubstantiated 5G health fears also pre-date the pandemic and thus the case, which was being pursued by Michael Mansfield QC of lawyers at Nexus Chambers, focused more on seeking a Judicial Review of the UK Government’s support for the rollout (i.e. questioning whether they had taken proper account of health concerns or factored in the need for adequate safeguards etc.).

Just to clarify, the case itself is perhaps less about whether 5G is safe or not, but rather whether the administrative procedures of the government have done enough due diligence when considering any potential health impacts.

Context for Health Fears

At present, the only agreed health impact from non-ionizing radio signals in the current generation of low power mobile communication networks (5G or otherwise) is an imperceivable amount of heating. But your body experiences massively more heating from the natural electromagnetic (EM) environment, such as via the Sun.

Just to clarify, the EM spectrum essentially reflects different kinds of light and most of that is invisible to human eyes. When an object absorbs any kind of light it heats up as it now has more energy than before, but often this effect is so small that you can’t feel it unless it’s very energetic (e.g. infrared makes your skin feel warm on a sunny day).

Likewise, all the mobile networks that are deployed today must conform to strict scientifically agreed rules for power and signal, which are based off many decades’ worth of scientific studies into this subject.

The Court Case

The campaign’s first attempt at securing a Judicial Review was rejected in July 2021 by the High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Foster (here). At the time, the judge noted that, “the real issue is that the claimants disagree with a large body of international opinion as to the safety of 5G [and the technical advice received] does not support the claimants’ concerns.”

She further highlighted how the “[government] defendants have set out their (rational, scientifically based) view that there is nothing fundamentally different about the physical characteristics of the radio signals produced by 5G compared to those produced by 3G and 4G.”

The judge also said that the case was “out of time” because the Government’s 5G policy was set back in 2017 and mobile operators, such as Three UK, EE (BT), O2 (VMO2) and Vodafone, have now been rolling it out for several years.

Despite this, Michael Mansfield QC, working alongside barristers Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett, “swiftly lodged a Renewal Notice seeking permission for a hearing” and in May 2022 that appeal to apply, again, for a Judicial Review was granted on three grounds.

The Three Grounds

1. Failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks from 5G technology

2. Failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing 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; and

3. Failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body.

The latest hearing was overseen by High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Stacey, and held on 8th March 2023. But the court ultimately rejected both of the first two grounds, while the third ground was dependent upon the first two grounds and thus also failed.

Mrs Justice Stacey said:

“The suggestion that the government is under a positive obligation to signpost to the public research or reports that it does not find credible would be confusing and unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst. If one were to test the proposition in a different context it would be rather like suggesting that in public information encouraging parents to vaccinate their children with an MMR jab, the government was under a duty to signpost “research” by Andrew Wakefield. It would be akin to requiring the government to give publicity to what it believes to be disinformation.

The argument also falls apart when one tests the proposition against a related 5G concern that some people (not the claimants I stress to add) have that coronavirus and the Covid vaccination programme is linked to 5G. If the claimants were right, the government would be required to alert readers of the relevant pages of GOV.UK to “reports” or “research” or doctors of some sort or another who have written opinions that link 5G to coronavirus which the government does not believe to be valid or reliable. It would amount to requiring the government to publicise theories it believes are dangerous and wrong.

It is uncontroversial that clear and accurate public information and guidance is extremely and increasingly important to counter inaccurate rumours, disinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories which are so easily spread on social media. The GOV.UK website provides clear advice and consistent messaging based on its considered opinion which is in line with the international consensus.

The government has adopted a precautionary approach in its messaging. Although it believes 5G is safe, out of an abundance of caution and on conservative principles it has suggested that those who are worried could, for example unplug the router at night, or not sleep with their mobile phone by their bed and to use their device further away from their body.

Mr Mansfield’s approach was to require the defendants to prove the negative in the absence of known risks of exposure at the levels experienced by the claimants and Ms Rock’s visitors. It is speculation and guesswork that something that we do not yet know of, or understand, might be harmful: an unknown unknown of the type that kept Donald Rumsfeld awake at night. It begs the question of what the information to be provided to the public would look like.”

The judge concluded by acknowledging the “distress to the claimants of the symptoms that they are experiencing” from “unexplained medical symptoms“, which can indeed cause misery and anxiety in addition to the pain and distress of the symptoms themselves. “The defendants do not dispute that the symptoms are real, but there is insufficient evidence to attribute them to exposure to 5G,” added the judge.

The anti-5G campaign group is now reviewing the judgment ahead of “offering detailed commentary and opinions“, which they said before immediately adding a long statement full of commentary and opinions: “Overall, we were not permitted to question the Government’s approach to regulation of 5G and we were not permitted to challenge the Government’s adoption of the ICNIRP guideline,” said the group.

The group continues to believe that the claim “5G is safe” is “blatantly at best a misleading oversimplification even when argued from the extremely narrow grounds we were granted“. At this stage it remains unclear whether the group will try again, but if they do then it seems plausible that they may need to further narrow their grounds for appeal or change tactics.