Jessica Learmond-Criqui - Case Owner
I am a solicitor. I became involved in understanding the harmful health impact of 5G when a member of my community alerted me to an application to put a mast on the building opposite her apartment.
5G is well known to pose a serious risk to human health. We are not talking here about Covid-19, but about links that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
This page is against wireless 5G, radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”) and electromagnetic fields (“EMFs”) generally due to their impact on the health of humans, animals and plants.
Many people are sensitive to RFR and EMFs and suffer illness, distress and financial loss due to inability to work. The balance of scientific evidence is now clear that RFR/EMFs are harmful to humans.
The UK government insist on using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set limits of radiation for public health. ICNIRP’s guidelines are not fit for purpose as, among other things, they only recognise harm from heating of the body and are set for short term exposure – 6 minutes in fact. Many people suffer harm without any heating of their bodies.
5G is the fifth generation of RFR technology used in the mobile telecoms industry and follows 1G – 4G. It dwarfs RFR from 1G – 4G because millions more masts, antennae, small cells, picocells etc have to be placed at short distances apart all around the country in order to develop the infrastructure to deliver the data speed promised by 5G.
The current electrosmog from 1G – 4G will become significantly worse and it is likely to result in more harm to humans, animals, trees and pollinators.
Many people have tried to engage with the government and its agencies, including Public Health England, over the last few years in an attempt to persuade them that their existing policies are harmful to human, animal and plant health. The government rejects such approaches and insists on its adherence to ICNIRP’s guidelines.
It has removed health concerns from the National Planning Policy Framework, thereby removing the ability of its citizens from raising such concerns at local council level. Its Electronic Communications Code has limited the rights of its citizens to object to equipment being put on their land. It has permitted the proliferation of RFR gadgets used by babies and children without constraint.
These policies are likely to result in harm to UK residents. There are likely to be many breaches of English law but a few may be breaches to duties to safeguard public health, breaches of the environmental legislation, breaches of human rights and breaches of the public sector equality duty. The public sector equality duty is relevant because the government, in promoting these harmful policies, is likely to be doing so without considering people who are electrohypersensitive and who are, thereby, disabled under the terms of the Equality Act.
What are we trying to achieve?
I am trying:
to obtain a change of government policy to stop the harm to UK residents, which would include:
an immediate halt to the roll out of 5G infrastructure until it is proven to be safe;
Direct all such businesses and persons to turn off all equipment which propagate wireless 5G signals including without limitation masts, antennae, wifi (including in schools), small cells;
Direct all products which use 5G wireless technology to be recalled as they are not safe;
Direct that the manufacture of all products using 5G wireless technology be halted.
Require the government to ensure that the industry lays cabling for the purposes of upgrades in technology rather than relying on wireless technology generating RFR and EMFs;
Require the government to examine all equipment and gadgets generating RFR and to take steps to ensure that such equipment does not cause harm to humans.
What's at stake?
The government and media state that there is no harm to humans from 5G. This is wrong. The majority of scientific evidence show that there is harm. The burden for illnesses which may result from 5G and other RFR will fall on the NHS and ultimately on the taxpayer. This too is wrong. The government are tasked with safeguarding the health of the nation and they are now being called to account for their failure to honour their duty to do so.
Many people who are electrohypersensitive have a limited involvement in public life or are excluded from public life because RFR in public spaces is so prevalent that they feel ill in such environments. Some are prisoners in their own homes, unable to go out and they struggle to live a normal life. A change in policy will, at the very least, see safe corridors being formed for such persons so that they too can participate in public life by enjoying public spaces and public venues.
UK residents are unaware of the harm that is being caused to themselves, their children and babies who are exposed to RFR to the extent that they are in today’s world. This case will, hopefully, change the government’s stance and ensure that they are aware of the potential harm so that they can either agree to participate in an RFR environment or they can live in their homes and public spaces free from RFR
What is the next step in the case?
With the help of Tim Buley QC of Landmark Chambers, as a first step, the High Court will be asked to review the stance taken by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England. The claim will be for judicial review of their policy of using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set the limits of public exposure which I and many other scientists say is too high, thereby, causing harm to humans.
I need Tim Buley QC to review the case, draft the application for judicial review, appear at any hearing relating to the application, prepare the case for a hearing and appear in court to present our case. I will be the solicitor acting in the case through LCS Practice Ltd and will charge just less than half of my normal hourly rate for work done. My normal hourly rate is £450 per hour plus VAT and I will charge £200 plus VAT per hour.
How much are we raising and why?
I am raising £150,000 to cover the legal and other costs and contingencies mentioned above including costs for the other side in the event of failure of the judicial review application - the Aarhus Convention cap of up to £10,000 will be claimed. I need your support: please contribute and share this page now.
Under the terms of this fundraising platform, if you give over £1,000, if there are unused funds after litigation, some of your pledge will be returned on a pro rata basis. If you give less than £1,000, unused funds will not be returned to you but used in accordance with the platform's terms on unused funds. Please review the other terms of the platform to be sure that you understand their policy regarding pledges.
You will see an initial target of £50,000 which should get to the end of any hearing relating to the application for judicial review and it includes the court fee and the Aarhus Convention cap of up to £10,000 for the other side's costs if the application is unsuccessful. Any unused funds and the balance to £150,000 (the stretch target) will be used as necessary for this litigation.