"I hope the European Court will find that our Convention rights were breached because the UK Government failed to provide legal certainty about local authoritiesβ public health obligations, and the domestic courts denied us a hearing through which that failure could be examined."
"Article 8 protects our homes, health and physical integrity. That protection must be practical and effective: before a mast is authorised, there should be a clear legal procedure requiring the responsible authority to assess site-specific risks, scrutinise exclusion zones and properly examine all relevant evidence submitted in objections, including evidence of harms reported within 500 metres."
"We expect the European Court of Human Rights to cut through the regulatory conundrums that we raise on the UKβs delusionary policy, by identifying the public health protection obligations of all involved authorities."
Location
π United Kingdom
McDougall & Churchill v United Kingdom β European Court of Human Rights application on mobile-mast public-health protection