Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills

Political material may be presented in schools without amounting to unlawful indoctrination, provided the teaching context prevents the school or teacher from promoting its partisan message. “Partisan” means one-sided and is not confined to party-political views. A balanced presentation of opposing political views requires fairness and dispassionate treatment, not equal time or identical weight. Scientific consensus does not require teachers to adopt neutrality between the prevailing scientific view and a minority dissenting view. Where the Government supplies politically expressive material nationally, adequate guidance is required. The guidance must identify material errors or departures from scientific consensus and assist teachers to facilitate informed discussion.

The claimant, a school governor and parent, sought judicial review of the decision by the Secretary of State to distribute An Inconvenient Truth and related materials to state secondary schools. The film was accepted to contain political views, although it was substantially based on scientific research. The challenge concerned whether distribution breached the duties in sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, relating respectively to political indoctrination and balanced treatment of political issues. The central questions were whether distribution itself promoted partisan political views and whether the accompanying online guidance adequately secured a balanced presentation.

1. The claim was not granted relief. The amended Guidance Note was sufficient to enable the film to be shown in a context that did not involve the promotion of partisan political views and that permitted a balanced presentation of opposing views. No order was made on the application, save as to costs.

2. “Partisan” in section 406 means one-sided. It is not limited to party-political views. Section 406 prohibits political indoctrination, not the mere presentation of a partisan document or film. A teacher may present such material as part of the syllabus where it is accompanied by appropriate context, tuition and debate. Distribution by the Defendant to facilitate that use was therefore not, by itself, an irremediable breach.

3. Section 407 requires a presentation that is fair and dispassionate. It does not require equal time, identical treatment or a mechanically equal presentation of opposing positions. The weight and worth of rival views may properly be exposed where that is justified.

4. Scientific propositions supported by the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion do not require a position of studied neutrality between the mainstream view and a minority scientific view. However, the film contained nine material errors or departures from the mainstream scientific position which were relevant because they supported its political message. The guidance needed to identify those matters and enable teachers to promote critical discussion.

5. Given the national distribution of the film and the likely reliance of non-specialist teachers on the supplied material, a cross-reference to online guidance was inadequate. The Guidance Note had to form part of the pack in hard copy. The original guidance failed adequately to identify the errors and did not sufficiently facilitate opposing political discussion, so there would have been a breach of sections 406 and 407 but for the proceedings and the agreed amendments. The amended guidance corrected those defects and was sufficient.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. Permission was granted at the rolled-up hearing before Mr Justice Burton, who then determined the substantive application.