This case is perhaps one of the most bizarre and futile attempts to litigate the laws of physics:
The case claims that 5G emits a particularly harmful form of electromagnetic radiation and is the cause of a number of common human ailments. The claimants allege that the government has been negligent and has failed to apply a precautionary principle to the roll-out of this technology.
The case purported that it would bring a “Judicial Review” against the British government. In English law, a judicial review is a procedure that allows a court to verify that the government has used its powers lawfully. If the court finds otherwise, it has the power to set-aside government decisions. This case alleged that the government’s roll-out of 5G was negligent and dangerous.
Three claimants assert that they have been harmed or are vulnerable to 5G. They also argue that the government has not effectively reviewed the safety of the new generation of mobile phone systems.
The case is led by Lorna Hackett, an English lawyer who claims to be a sufferer of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Hackett is a partner in Hackett and Dabbs, a firm of solicitors. In British law, solicitors are general legal practitioners who do not represent clients in court. Hacket is working with Michael Mansfield QC, a senior barrister who has been marketed as the figurehead of this campaign and will represent the matter in court.
One unusual feature of this case is that the costs have been entirely borne by a crowd-funding campaign. At the time of writing, this campaign has raised over £180,000. The vast majority of this money has been spent on the lawyers named above.
This matter is due to have a final hearing in the Administrative Court, in mid-December 2022. It is 100% guaranteed that Legal Action Against 5G will lose this case once more. This lawsuit has spanned nearly three years. It has achieved absolutely nothing.
This page is intended to present a history of the case through its court filings:
The case began in the Summer of 2020 with this letter sent to various government departments alleging multiple failures to respond to the risks inherent in 5G. The “Letter Before Action” warned that 5G may be responsible for various diseases. The letter invited the government to impose a “moratorium on 5G pending proper research” and a “full reassessment” of the risks associated with 5G.
We do not have the government’s response to this letter. However, we can guess that they were not particularly enthusiastic about aborting the nation’s biggest communications infrastructure roll-out, one that had been underway since 2017. The British government declined to implement a moratorium at the request of these claimants.
This is why on 25th March 2021, Legal Action Against 5G filed a claim against the British Government:
This is a long document. The first section is a form that identifies the claimants and defendants in the case. From Page 11 onwards, we have the claimant’s complaint. This identifies in greater detail the harm the claimants believe they are suffering and the legal basis for their complaint.
You will note that this document makes reference to a portfolio of “scientific evidence” compiled by Professor Tom Butler, a professor of business computing from University College Cork, Ireland. Professor Butler does not have any academic qualification related to non-ionizing radiation safety, radio-engineering or any biomedical field related that might be relevant to this case.
A quick read of this document will show that it is a cherry-picked compilation of common conspiracy theories and misrepresentations about 5G and radio safety. The document makes no attempt to represent mainstream views on this subject.
The British government replied with this well-researched defence document outlining the many conspicuous defects in the application and the purported evidence.
It will surprise nobody that the application for judicial review was rejected. On 6th July 2021, Justice Foster rejected the application for judicial review.
The judge explained that it is not the court’s role to decide science. The judge observed that the claimants disagree with the overwhelming body of information regarding the safety of 5G, however, this is not sufficient ground to force the government to take a particular action, nor is it sufficient to force a court to overrule the government’s decision.
The government is entitled to rely on expert advice from other government agencies and specialist research organizations. The government does not have to consider evidence sent in by random people who think, contrary to any evidence, that they are experts. In other words, Legal Action Against 5G had lost.
In the first ruling, it is important to note that “unarguable” means that an argument is utterly hopeless. “arguable” does not mean that the argument is sound or evidenced – it just means that it is slightly better than hopeless. It means that it is not completely absurd to make such an argument.
This was not the end of the story: On 19th October 2021, Hackett reapplied for judicial review. The court permitted certain witness statements to be added to the bundle.
The lawyers appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, one of the highest courts in the British legal system.
This was their first partial success:
The court ruled on a very narrow technicality that they could have a judicial review, but the only matter that could be brought before the lower court was one of transparency.
The court ruled that discussions of health, safety and alleged evidence of harms caused by 5G could not be brought before the court. The court also ruled that the technical, scientific and medical claims could not be brought.
As a result of the ruling from the Court of Appeals, the matter was once again with the Administrative court.
We do not have all of the applications and correspondence, but it appears that the purpose of these rulings was to progress the case in the manner ordered by the Appeals court:
Legal Action against 5G provided the court with a revised statement intended to fix the defects of the 2021 filing. Despite it’s designation as an ‘Amended’ statement of fact, it is similar in scope and structure to the original statement attached to the application form.
And the government presented a revised defence document, whose main purpose was to remind the court this amended statement was substantially similar to the original document and included a great deal of content that both courts had ruled was irrelevant, unarguable and had to be removed.
The Administrative Court, upon realizing that Legal Action Against 5G had not complied with instructions, withdrew the previously granted permission to introduce additional evidence.
The court once again noted that the claimant’s statement included a great deal of information that “goes nowhere” and cautioned the parties about the need to stay within the narrow remit of the case:
The matter will be before the Administrative Court in mid-December.