Written by Eileen O’Connor
Director and Co-Founder, EM Radiation Research Trust
McDougall & Churchill v United Kingdom
Joint application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 25 August 2026
When a phone mast is placed close to people’s homes, schools and communities, residents should be able to expect that their concerns about public health, vulnerable people and safety will be properly considered by the authorities responsible for protecting them. But what happens when residents raise those concerns, provide evidence and seek answers through the UK system, yet still believe they have no effective remedy?
They take their case to an international court.
The new application to the European Court of Human Rights by Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill brings this fundamental issue into sharp focus. McDougall & Churchill v United Kingdom raises important questions about telecommunications infrastructure, public health protection, legal certainty and access to an effective remedy. It also raises a much wider question: why are residents having to look beyond the UK to seek an effective remedy when the people and institutions responsible for protecting the public should be addressing these concerns at home?
A significant new application has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill concerning telecommunications infrastructure, public health protection, legal certainty and access to an effective remedy.
The application examines whether the United Kingdom’s legal and regulatory framework provides adequate protection when telecommunications infrastructure is proposed, particularly where site-specific public health concerns and relevant evidence are raised.
The applicants’ case is not simply about whether a telecommunications installation has been declared compliant with ICNIRP exposure guidelines. It concerns the wider framework for public health protection, including who is responsible, what evidence should be considered, how those responsibilities should be exercised and what remedy is available when they are not properly addressed.
Why have Karen and Neil taken this issue to the European Court?
The application raises a number of important questions about how public health is protected when telecommunications infrastructure is authorised, including:
• How are site-specific public health risks identified and assessed?
• How are public exposure and exclusion zones addressed?
• How are cumulative exposure, medical implants and vulnerable groups considered?
• What environmental evidence should be considered?
• When members of the public submit evidence or raise objections, is that evidence properly examined and addressed?
The applicants argue that these issues engage rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 6(1), 8 and 13, concerning access to a fair hearing, respect for private and family life, and an effective remedy.
Karen Churchill explains why the case has been brought:
“I hope the European Court will find that our Convention rights were breached because the UK Government failed to provide legal certainty about local authorities’ 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.
A successful outcome would secure the hearing and effective remedy we were denied, and clarify the protection owed to every community facing involuntary exposure.”
Neil McDougall explains what the case seeks to clarify:
“A starting point has to be UKHSA ‘Mobile phone base stations: radio waves and health’ guidance:
‘control of exposures occurs through product safety legislation, health and safety legislation and planning policy. These regulatory areas all consider the international guidelines’ (July 2024),
giving the impression that ‘planning policy’ floats in the ether!
We expose the complexities of that legislation
In reality, planning policy does not regulate anything – decisions made by LAs/LPAs on the siting of masts/small cell deployment determine involuntary public exposure in real world settings, and planning policy is embedded in applicable legislation.
We expect the European Court of Human Rights to cut through the regulatory conundrums that we raise on the UK’s delusionary policy, by identifying the public health protection obligations of all involved authorities. Then, to identify the powers available to those authorities, in particular LAs/LPAs. And then, where those obligations are undeniable, identifying the rights of the public in respect of all technology proposed for deployment to protect us from harm, injury and nuisance, alongside our rights to protect ourselves and others in the decision-making process locally in accordance with reliable and legally binding consultations.
A successful outcome would relegate planning policy and ICNIRP certification to their rightful places within a planning system that requires evidence-based decisions that make public health protection a true imperative, i.e. the only imperative!”
Documents relating to the McDougall & Churchill application
The following documents relate specifically to Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill’s application to the European Court of Human Rights.
Case Summary
An overview of the application, the issues raised and the applicants’ case.
READ THE CASE SUMMARY→
The Court Application – Sections E-G, from p5
READ THE COURT APPLICATION →
Supporting Annex
Additional supporting material and references accompanying the application.
READ THE SUPPORTING ANNEX →
Site-Specific Public Health and Environmental Assessment
READ THE ASSESSMENT →
Full Evidence Bundle
The wider body of evidence referred to within the application.
READ THE FULL EVIDENCE BUNDLE →
The Radiation Research Trust’s longstanding campaign
The issues raised in the McDougall & Churchill application include concerns that the Radiation Research Trust has also been highlighting in its longstanding public health work. The Trust has been raising concerns about electromagnetic radiation, telecommunications infrastructure and public health protection for decades.
The correspondence highlighted below represents the latest phase of that work, through letters, questions and engagement with Sefton Council, UKHSA, councillors and MPs during 2024 to 2026.
The history of this work is important. At the EM Radiation Research Trust Conference, EMF & Health: A Global Issue, held at the Royal Society in London on 8 to 9 September 2008, Professor Paolo Vecchia, then Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), presented a slide setting out what ICNIRP exposure guidelines are and what they are not.
Slide 16 made clear that the guidelines were not intended to be:
“Mandatory prescriptions for safety”
“The ‘last word’ on the issue”
“Defensive walls for industry or others”
Source: Professor Paolo Vecchia, ICNIRP and International Standards, EMF & Health:A Global Issue, London, 8 to 9 September 2008, slide 16, “Exposure Guidelines”
The issues raised by the Trust have been put repeatedly to public authorities and elected representatives, yet concerns about public health protection, responsibility and effective safeguards have remained unresolved. The absence of effective action through political and administrative channels is part of the wider context in which cases such as McDougall & Churchill have become necessary.
The McDougall & Churchill application now brings questions about site-specific evidence, public exposure, medical implants, vulnerable groups, exclusion zones and the responsibilities of public authorities before the Court. The application is a significant step, but it is also important to understand the circumstances in which it has become necessary.
The legal proceedings therefore provide an opportunity to seek clarity, accountability and effective protection where other avenues have failed to deliver.
Recent correspondence and public engagement
During 2024 to 2026, the Radiation Research Trust continued to raise these concerns with public authorities and elected representatives.
The correspondence below provides a record of that recent engagement with Sefton Council, UKHSA, councillors and MPs.
12 September 2024 — Question & Background Submission
The RRT submitted questions and background information to Sefton Council concerning telecommunications and public-health issues.
READ THE 12 SEPTEMBER 2024 SUBMISSION →
18 October 2024 — Liability Letter to Sefton Council and UKHSA
The RRT subsequently raised further questions concerning public-health responsibilities and telecommunications infrastructure.
READ THE 18 OCTOBER 2024 LETTER →
29 May 2025 — Public Health Risks, AIMDs and Vulnerable Groups
This letter specifically addressed protection for people with active implantable medical devices and other vulnerable groups.
It also raised the practical question of how people who need to observe telecommunications exclusion zones can know where those zones are located if site-specific information is not publicly available.
READ THE 29 MAY 2025 LETTER — PDF →
2 July 2025 — Urgent Public Health Questions
The RRT submitted urgent questions concerning RF radiation, telecommunications infrastructure and vulnerable groups.
READ THE 2 JULY 2025 QUESTIONS →
10 July 2025 — Sefton Council Public Meeting
Questions concerning 5G, public health and people with medical implants were raised through the Council’s public-meeting process.
READ THE RRT’S ACCOUNT AND PUBLIC QUESTIONS →
1 August 2025 — Letter Supporting Sefton Residents
The RRT submitted a further formal letter to Sefton Council following the July meeting and in support of concerns raised by Sefton residents.
READ THE 1 AUGUST 2025 LETTER →
September 2025 — Further Questions and Correspondence
The RRT continued to raise questions concerning 5G, RF exposure, public health and the responsibilities of the local authority.
VIEW THE SEPTEMBER 2025 CORRESPONDENCE →
November 2025 — RRT Response to Sefton Council
The RRT submitted a further response concerning RF EMF governance and public-health duties.
READ THE NOVEMBER 2025 RESPONSE →
22 February 2026 — Letter to Sefton Councillors and MPs
The RRT sent further correspondence concerning RF/EMF public-health issues.
READ THE 22 FEBRUARY 2026 LETTER — PDF →
17 March 2026 — Formal Response to Sefton Council
The RRT submitted a further formal response concerning outstanding public-health questions and the Council’s position.
READ THE 17 MARCH 2026 RESPONSE →
Full RRT / Sefton Council correspondence collection
The Trust maintains the wider chronological collection of its correspondence and public questions concerning Sefton Council and telecommunications public-health issues.
VIEW THE FULL RRT SEFTON COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE COLLECTION →
Why collective action is needed
It is significant that the McDougall & Churchill application has now been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. But the issues raised by the case need to be addressed now, and we should not simply wait for the outcome.
These are matters that affect communities across the country and demand public and political action. The questions raised throughout this article deserve clear answers and meaningful action.
We are therefore calling on people across the country to contact their MPs and local councillors and ask them:
1. Who is responsible for protecting public health when telecommunications infrastructure is authorised?
2. How are site-specific public health concerns properly considered before a telecommunications installation is approved?
3. How are people with medical implants and other vulnerable members of the public protected?
4. How are exclusion zones identified and communicated to people who may be affected?
5. What happens when residents submit evidence raising serious concerns about potential health effects?
6. What effective remedy is available when members of the public believe their concerns have not been properly considered?
The time for collective action is now.
Contact your MP. Contact your local councillors. Ask the questions. Request clear answers. Share the responses and encourage others to do the same.
Change will not come from waiting for someone else to act. It requires people across the country to stand together and demand that these important issues are properly addressed.
