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

The claimants sought judicial review of government action and public information about the risks from 5G technology, relying on positive obligations under articles 2 and 8 ECHR and related public law duties. The Court of Appeal granted permission on a narrow basis limited to whether the State had a duty to provide adequate information and reasons to the public about 5G and whether it met obligations of transparency; challenges to the government’s assessment of the scientific evidence were excluded. The High Court concluded that, on the evidence before the court, exposure to 5G within the international ICNIRP guideline limits did not present a threat to life or to private and family life such as would trigger a positive obligation to provide further warning or reasons. The judge therefore dismissed the claim: in the absence of a demonstrated or probable risk, there was nothing for the public to be warned about and the government’s public information and precautionary advice were adequate.

This judicial review concerned complaints that the United Kingdom Government and its departments had failed to investigate, explain and provide adequate public information about alleged health risks from 5G wireless technology. The claim originally advanced many public law grounds including human rights (articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR), the public sector equality duty and statutory duties under domestic health law. Permission was initially refused at first instance but the Court of Appeal (Lewison LJ) granted permission limited to three grounds: (1) adequacy of information provided to the public about risks and how individuals might avoid or minimise such risks; (2) failure to provide adequate reasons for not creating a process to investigate adverse health effects from 5G and/or for discounting such risks; and (3) failure to meet requirements of transparency and openness. All other grounds, including direct challenges to the scientific assessments and to the ICNIRP guidance, were excluded.

The claimants sought declarations and public law relief based on alleged positive obligations under articles 2 and 8 ECHR to inform and warn the public. The defendants relied on the scientific assessments adopted by UKHSA (formerly Public Health England), COMARE and international bodies, particularly the ICNIRP guidelines (2020), and on the GOV.UK information that communicated the government’s view that exposures within ICNIRP limits are not harmful. The court framed the issues narrowly: given the government’s view of the science, did a positive duty to provide further information and reasons arise, and if so, had it been complied with? The judge analysed Strasbourg authority (including Guerra, Lopez Ostra, Kolyadenko, Vilnes and related cases) and domestic jurisprudence about positive obligations and the public’s right to information.

The court held that the threshold for a positive obligation to warn or to provide detailed reasons is the existence (or probable existence) of a threat to life or to private and family life. On the facts and evidence before the court there was insufficient support for the proposition that 5G exposure within ICNIRP limits posed such a threat. The government’s adoption of international guidance and its public information (including precautionary advice) were adequate; requiring the State to signpost or publicise reports or papers it considered unreliable or misinformation would be counterproductive. The claim therefore failed and was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that, within the limited grounds permitted by the Court of Appeal, there was insufficient evidence that exposure to 5G within the ICNIRP guideline limits posed a threat to life or to private and family life such as to give rise to a positive obligation under articles 2 or 8 ECHR to provide further information or reasons. The government’s public information and precautionary advice were adequate and the claim therefore failed.

Permission for judicial review was initially refused on the papers by Foster J and on renewal by Lang J. The Court of Appeal (Lewison LJ) granted permission on 25 May 2022 but only on three narrow grounds (limited to duties to provide information and reasons and transparency); all other grounds were refused. The Court of Appeal referred the permitted grounds back to the Administrative Court for directions and a substantive hearing.