Victoria Angell & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors

A positive obligation under articles 2 or 8 ECHR to provide public information about an environmental or health risk arises only where the evidence establishes an identified threat or risk to life, health or private and family life. The court must assess the seriousness and extent of the potential harm against its likelihood, having regard to the knowledge and perception of risk at the relevant time. Judicial review is not an appropriate vehicle for resolving contested scientific questions or substituting the court’s scientific assessment for that of government advisers. Where government information is clear, accurate, consistent with its considered scientific view and supported by accessible source material, there is no general duty to publicise research or theories regarded as unreliable or dangerous.

The claimants sought judicial review of the Government’s approach to the public-health risks of 5G wireless technology. They alleged failures to provide adequate public information and reasons, and failures of transparency, framed principally under articles 2 and 8 ECHR.

The Court of Appeal granted permission on limited grounds concerning public information, reasons and transparency, while excluding challenges to the scientific assessment of 5G, the ICNIRP guidelines and the Government’s substantive regulatory decisions. The issue was whether, in light of the Government’s view that 5G was safe within the applicable exposure limits, articles 2 or 8 required further information, warnings, reasons or signposting of contrary research.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Court was confined to considering the extent of any duty to provide information and reasons to the public. It could not determine contested scientific matters or review the underlying assessment of 5G risks, the ICNIRP guidelines or the Government’s regulatory approach.
2. Articles 2 and 8 may impose positive obligations requiring access to clear and full information about activities dangerous to life, health or private and family life. The existence and scope of the obligation are fact-sensitive and depend on the origin of the threat, its susceptibility to mitigation, the domestic decision-making process and the complexity of the issue.
3. Risk requires an assessment of the potential seriousness and extent of harm against the probability of the hazard occurring. Evidence of past harm is highly relevant, although not conclusive. The assessment must be based on knowledge and perceptions prevailing at the relevant time, rather than hindsight.
4. The claimants failed at the threshold. On the permitted evidence, exposure to 5G within the ICNIRP guidelines was most unlikely to pose a risk to life or private and family life. The Government required compliance with those guidelines, monitored exposure, kept its advice under review and had published clear and consistent information explaining its view and linking to relevant assessments.
5. There was no obligation to signpost research or reports which the Government considered unreliable or disinformation. Such a requirement could confuse the public and would be inconsistent with the duty to provide accurate public-health information. The claims under articles 2 and 8 therefore failed, and the contingent transparency ground also fell away.

1. Court of Appeal: On 25 May 2022, permission to apply for judicial review was granted on limited grounds concerning public information, reasons and transparency, framed under articles 2, 3 and/or 8 ECHR. The remaining grounds were rejected.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The claim was dismissed after determination of the permitted grounds.