Major EHS tribunal decision in the UK
A recent decision by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) has found that an EHS child who is made ill by Wi-Fi must be accommodated by her school, which needs to produce - and implement - an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her continuing education.
This ground-breaking news became public knowledge on 17th August 2022, when Local Government Lawyer published this article: 'Upper Tribunal requires council to secure EHCP for student who is hypersensitive to Wi-Fi signals'.
The article noted that:
'The Upper Tribunal has ruled that a council must secure special educational provision for a child who has electromagnetic hypersensitivity and is particularly sensitive to Wi-Fi signals'
The Upper Tribunal decision is here.
On 19th August 2022, PHIRE Medical (Physicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment) issued this press release, which gave additional details about this case, including statements from the parents and child, and excerpts from three tribunal hearings.
The decision that this child should be accommodated for her electromagnetic hypersensitivity in her school was based on provisions from the Children and Families Act 2014, as well as the Equality Act 2010. Under the latter, the child was found to be disabled, under sections 6 and 20(2)(b):
(1)A person (P) has a disability if—
(a)P has a physical or mental impairment, and
(b)the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
(2)A reference to a disabled person is a reference to a person who has a disability.
20 Duty to make adjustments
(2)The duty comprises the following three requirements...
(4)The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage...
(9)In relation to the second requirement, a reference in this section or an applicable Schedule to avoiding a substantial disadvantage includes a reference to—
(b)altering it
(I've extracted what I believe are the correct parts from this Act; I'm not an expert on Government legislation though!).
As the excerpts in the PHIRE press release show, the denial by the former Public Health England (now the UK Health Security Agency - UKHSA) that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is associated with EMFs was irrelevant, so far as the Equality Act 2010 is concerned. The First Tier Tribunal Decision Letter said this:
“We take into account that Public Health England doesn’t recognise EHS, but there is a credible body of evidence that on balance establishes the impairment.”
In other words, it doesn't matter what health agencies, such as the UKHSA and the World Health Organisation, and private groups, such as ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), say about EHS, which is that it is a psychological problem, unrelated to EMFs. What mattered in this case was the evidence as presented, under the Equality Act 2010:
“On balance, we find that some individuals are sensitive to electro-magnetic fields in the way described by the parents.”
and:
"We decided, on balance that XXX’s symptoms are caused by electro-magnetic fields”
In fact, having read through the Upper Tribunal decision, as well as the excerpts from the other tribunals, it is clear that no attempt has been made to state that this child's intolerance of Wi-Fi is psychogenic (i.e. that it originates in her mind). This is underlined by the involvement of:
'two educational psychologists both of whom found her and her parents credible in describing her symptoms'.
The reason that I believe - and hope - that this decision is so significant, and potentially far-reaching, is that it shows that EHS people can use existing legislation - the Equality Act 2010 - in order to press for accommodation.
That this family went through with this lengthy, and presumably very challenging, legal process over a number of years is something to be greatly admired and appreciated, and I'd imagine that they would have had access to some very supportive and knowledgeable assistance behind the scenes.
My understanding is that the decision in this case now forms a legal precedent, at least under certain aspects of UK law (this will become clearer over time), and I hope that it will support further legal actions by electrosensitive individuals, as we increasingly assert our fundamental right to be recognised and accommodated, and to be treated with respect, compassion, and equality before the law.
Comments
Post a Comment