Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a father and school governor, brought an application challenging the lawfulness of a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute a film, "An Inconvenient Truth" ("AIT"), by former US Vice-President Al Gore, to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom. The film was part of a pack including four other short films and a cross-reference to an educational website containing a Guidance Note. The Defendant did not contest any delay in bringing the claim, negating the possibility of an injunction to restrain distribution. Permission to proceed was initially refused on paper but later granted for a hearing. The judgment follows this hearing and addresses the legal issues raised by the distribution and accompanying materials.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the distribution of the film by the Defendant constituted the promotion of partisan political views contrary to the Education Act 1996, specifically sections 406 and 407.
2. How the statutory duties to forbid promotion of partisan political views and to secure balanced presentation of opposing views apply in the context of distributing a politically themed educational film.
3. Whether the Guidance Note accompanying the film sufficiently addresses the statutory requirements to prevent unlawful political indoctrination and to ensure balanced presentation.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The film promotes partisan political views by advancing an apocalyptic political vision influencing fiscal, investment, energy, and foreign policies.
• Distribution of the film to schools facilitates the promotion of partisan political views in breach of the statutory duty to forbid such promotion.
• The breach of section 406 is irremediable by mere distribution, regardless of any accompanying guidance.
• The Guidance Note accompanying the film is insufficient, failing to address significant errors and presenting an unbalanced view that does not adequately inform or stimulate critical discussion.
• The duty under section 407 to offer a balanced presentation requires equal or equivalent counter-balancing views ("equal air time").

Defendant's Arguments

• The film, although political, is substantially based on scientific research and does not constitute unlawful promotion of partisan political views when used with appropriate guidance.
• The statutory duty to forbid promotion of partisan political views does not prohibit the presentation of partisan political material if properly contextualised and debated in schools.
• The Guidance Note, especially as amended, provides sufficient context, identifies errors, and encourages critical analysis, thereby fulfilling the duty under sections 406 and 407.
• The duty under section 407 does not require equal airtime for opposing views but rather a balanced, fair, and dispassionate presentation.
• Teachers are trusted professionals who will use the film as a supplement to teaching, not as indoctrination.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McGovern v AG [1982] Ch 321	Definition and scope of "political" in the context of political views, clarifying it is not limited to party political.	The court accepted that the film promotes political views broadly understood, not limited to party politics, obviating detailed analysis of the term.
R v Nelson [1997] Crim LR 234	Interpretation of "balanced" presentation, analogous to a trial judge's duty to fairly present prosecution and defence cases.	The court adopted the principle that balance means fair and dispassionate presentation, not necessarily equality of time or air.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the statutory provisions in the Education Act 1996, sections 406 and 407, which prohibit the promotion of partisan political views in teaching and require balanced presentation of political issues. The court interpreted "partisan" as meaning "one-sided" and "promotion" as distinct from mere presentation or facilitation. It concluded that the distribution of a partisan film per se does not constitute unlawful promotion if accompanied by proper guidance and context.

The court reviewed the film and acknowledged it as a political film based substantially on scientific research but presenting a political message advocating urgent action on climate change. The Defendant conceded the film promotes political views. The court identified nine specific errors or exaggerations in the film that depart from the scientific consensus as represented by the IPCC reports.

Regarding the Guidance Note, the court found the original version inadequate because it failed to address these errors or provide sufficient context to prevent the film from being perceived as partisan promotion. The Defendant's amended Guidance Note, which includes explicit identification of errors, references to the IPCC reports, and instructions for teachers to ensure balanced presentation and critical examination, was found sufficient to comply with statutory duties.

The court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that equal airtime for opposing views was required, holding that "balanced" means fair and dispassionate rather than equal. It emphasized the role of teachers as professionals who would use the film as a teaching aid within the broader curriculum.

Finally, the court concluded that with the amended Guidance Note distributed in hard copy alongside the film, the Defendant is not unlawfully promoting partisan political views and is complying with sections 406 and 407.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is to make NO ORDER prohibiting the distribution of the film accompanied by the amended Guidance Note, subject only to costs to be determined.

The direct effect is that the Defendant may continue distributing the film to state secondary schools provided the amended Guidance Note, which addresses errors and ensures balanced presentation, is included in hard copy. No injunction or prohibition is granted.

No new legal precedent is established beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation principles and the assessment of the specific educational materials in context.