———- Forwarded message ———
From: Nicholas Martin
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 at 10:48
Subject: Three UK Ltd, the NPPF and telecom mast planning permission adjudication
To: <paulmartin@wirral.gov.uk>
Cc: Jez Cook, Paul Cardin, Clive Jones MP <Clive.Jones.MP@parliament.uk>
Dear Mr Martin,
I am writing to you as chair of ACHES (Adult, Child, Health & Environmental Support).
Your letters to Mr Cook, 18 June and 2 August and as attached, concerning your investigations into ICNIRP certification have been brought to my attention.
[click to see investigation findings]
In this respect I would like to suggest, further to consultation with a retired police inspector, that the potential use of a “false instrument” under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 might be a more appropriate legal context in which to view what has been going on, not just in the Wirral but throughout the nation.
Set out below is his reasoning:
“From the circumstances you describe we are dealing with potential offences under The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act of 1981.
S1 of that act states:
A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.”
An instrument is defined under S8(1)(a) as ‘Any document whether of a formal or informal character’
‘False’ is defined at section 9 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. Section 9(1)(a) – (g) sets out 8 exhaustive scenarios in which an instrument is false for the purposes of the FCA 1981.
Whether an instrument falls within any of these scenarios will be fact specific and potentially complex. An instrument that contains within it a false statement will not necessarily render the instrument itself a forgery. A lie is a false statement, but documents containing lies or false statements are not always regarded as false instruments. A false instrument is one that “purports” to be something which it is not – i.e. it must tell a lie about itself (see the decision by the House of Lords in R v More [1988] 86 Crim App R 234).
I believe S9(1)(b) fits our scenario:
‘An instrument is false if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in that form’
So the instrument is false in that it tells a lie about itself in that it purports to have been made by Three UK Limited, which is impossible because that corporation is no longer trading. Which leads us to the question ‘Why?’
S10(1)(b)(ii) states:
an act or omission intended to be induced is to a person’s prejudice if, and only if, it is one which, if it occurs—
(b)will result in somebody being given an opportunity—
(ii)to gain a financial advantage from him otherwise than by way of remuneration; or
The argument here I would suggest is that the intended act to be induced by the person accepting the certificate as genuine is for the planning application to be approved and the financial advantage would be that in the event of an incident or claim related to the mast in question, the telecom company would not be the liable party – that would fall to the council who accepted the false instrument as genuine.
Section 3 of the Act creates the offence of ‘Using a False Instrument’ :
It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.
So this is our initial position in reporting the crime allegation, we have potential offences of making and using a false instrument, however, it will be prudent to mention that this is not an isolated incident, and that a number of employees at various locations in the UK are uttering these false instruments intending that they be accepted as genuine. This would suggest a pattern of behaviour that is potentially about avoiding liability in the event of any incidents or claims in relation to specific masts, which gives the telecom company a financial advantage (a potentially huge one).”
Attached (file name ICNIRP Certification) is a letter ACHES recently sent to the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner. This department of state being most relevant to local planning authorities, of course.
To express all this in layman`s terms, imagine if a person were to be stopped for speeding and the police were to ask the driver for his driving licence and the driver then said here you are officer, use this one from my Grandad who died on 17 October 2015. Would the police accept that ? Of course not, so why would it be acceptable to the police that telecom masts all over the country have been granted planning permissions on the basis of certificates to protect public health, issued in the name of a “dead” legal entity – and we are talking about certificates to safeguard public health.
The second point that has been brought to my attention relates to earlier correspondence between Mr Cook and Wirral Council relating to para 117 of the NPPF and the apparent change from “near” to “within” as in the below:
‘117 a.) The outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college…’
117 a.) The outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed within a school or college.’
Wirral In It Together 