A campaigner has lost a High Court fight after questioning the adequacy of Government information about 5G wireless technology.

Victoria Angell, who has launched a website called Action Against 5G, raised health concerns and argued that ministers were not complying with a duty to provide information.

But a judge has ruled against her after considering arguments at a recent High Court hearing in London.

Mrs Justice Stacey outlined her reasoning in a written ruling published online on Wednesday.

Ms Angell, and two other women, had taken legal action against Health, Environment and Digital Culture, Media, and Sport ministers.

Ministers disputed claims made against them.

The judge said the case concerned the “claimants' perceptions of the public health risks associated with 5G”.

She said the three claimants considered that their health “has been, or could be, affected by proximity to 5G”.

Mrs Justice Stacey said issues she had considered related to the extent to which the Government was “under a duty to provide information and reasons to the public about 5G, based on their view of the scientific evidence”.

Mrs Justice Stacey said 5G was the term used for the fifth and newest generation of wireless technology.

“It was developed to cope with the increasing demand for mobile telecommunications and to make new applications possible such as self-driving cars and remote surgery,” she said.

“5G uses radio waves, otherwise known as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, and which are classified as non-ionising radiation.

“This means the packets of energy that form the radiation are too small to break chemical bonds: the radiation cannot damage cells and cause cancer in the same way as ionising radiation.”

She said the Government wanted the UK to be a world leader in 5G technology.

Ms Angell had been contacted by many others who shared her health concerns, said the judge.

“Some of those who get in touch with the campaign are very unwell,” she said.

“Some eschew all kinds of technology and have become increasingly isolated from the world in order to minimise exposure to the increasing ubiquity of G technology and the 5G rollout programme.

“They find the increasing coverage of masts and street furniture intimidating and reminiscent of Big Brother in the dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell.”

The judge said the three claimants had questioned whether information provided by the Government complied with aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life.

She said she had to consider whether 5G posed a “threat to life, or to private and family life”.

Mrs Justice Stacey said, on the facts of the case, there was “insufficient support for the proposition” that exposure to 5G, within International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines, posed a “risk to life or family and private life, so as to give rise to a positive obligation to provide information”.

“Accordingly the claim must fail,” the judge added.

“Absent an identified threat or risk, there is nothing for the public to be warned of.”