By Amber Melville-Brown, David Price Solicitors and Advocates, London


Pupils and partisan political propaganda

Stuart Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2007] EWCH 2288 (Admin)

Last year, former US Vice-President Al Gore won an Oscar for his film 'An Inconvenient Truth'. He and the United Nations' intergovernmental panel on climate change (the IPCC) have added to that the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in highlighting issues of climate change.



The committee is said to have been impressed by IPCC reports over the past two decades, which 'created an ever broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming'. Why the peace prize? Because the work of the recipients helped to demonstrate the 'increased danger of violent conflicts and wars within and between states'.



Those of us who are concerned about the possibility of global warming may turn the lights off when we leave a room; we may recycle our cans and bottles; and we may shop at farmers' markets rather than supermarkets. But are these minority efforts just a drop in the (allegedly rising) ocean? If we really want to change our planet for the better, surely we need to educate the children who will be its inheritors and future guardians.



This is presumably what the UK government had in mind when, in February 2007, its press release announced that it would be distributing Al Gore's film to all secondary schools in Great Britain. The climate-change pack included four other short films and a cross-reference to an educational website, Teachernet. According to the press release, 'children are the key to changing society's long-term attitude to the environment. Not only are they passionate about saving the planet but children also have a big influence over their own family's lifestyles and behaviour. Al Gore's film is a powerful message about the fragility of our planet and I [Education Secretary Alan Johnson] am delighted that we are able to make sure that every secondary school in the country has a copy to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes'.



Great, cry the environmentalists. But as Paul Downes, barrister at 2tg (2 Temple Gardens as was) told an audience at his seminar on 5 December, this decision 'raised eyebrows in many quarters'. Why? Because according to some - his client Stuart Dimmock for one - the film is political propaganda and has 'no place in UK secondary schools'. Equally harshly, Mr Downes summarised the film as 'about 30% political, 50% science (most of which is misleading) and 20% sentimental mush'. Instructing Malletts, the father of two and school governor Mr Dimmock brought judicial review proceedings, arguing that the distribution of the film breached sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996.



Section 406 provides an absolute prohibition of political propaganda in schools: 'The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid... the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.' Section 407 provides that 'the local authority, governing body and head teachers shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils... they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.'



It was common ground between the parties that the film was political. Mr Justice Burton said: 'Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent and if necessary expensive and inconvenient steps must be taken to counter it.'



But was the government's distribution of the pack partisan - according to the judge, 'one-sided' - promotion? Simply showing the film was not, according to the judge. Were that the case, teachers would breach the Act by showing a film about 'Nazi or Leninist/Stalinist propaganda' or a 'racist or an anti-racist film in a history or a citizenship class'. He would have to construe 'the word "promotion" as if it meant nothing more than "presentation"'. It was 'political indoctrination' that the statute sought to guard against; showing the film 'with proper tuition and debate' would not.



But this is where the government fell down. Merely including a reference in the pack to guidance notes was not enough; they should have been a constituent part. The notes themselves explain their intention to 'help teachers to engage pupils with... questions, discuss the facts and test the science'. If they were not in the pack, they could not do this. Moreover, the initial notes were deficient as they did not correct various 'errors' in the science as presented.



Out of a long list of 'errors', the judge only found nine sufficiently persuasive to be relevant to the argument. They included an assertion that sea level rises of up to 20 feet would be caused in the near future by ice melting in West Antarctica or Greenland. This 'distinctly alarmist' view was not consistent with the commonly accepted view that, if this melting did occur, the seas would only rise over millennia. Another 'error' was that a new scientific study had shown that polar bears were drowning as a result of melting ice, requiring the bears to swim longer distances. There might in the future be 'drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues', said Burton J, 'but [the report, which only referred to four bears having drowned after a storm] plainly does not support Mr Gore's description'. Failing to alert teachers to these 'errors' put them at risk of indoctrinating their classes, rather than simply stimulating debate.



Accordingly, distributing the pack as the government had done contravened the Act. 'The spirit of co-operation in which this hearing has been carried through is a tribute to constructive litigation,' said Burton J, and amended guidance notes were produced 'drawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error and/or in any event where he deviates from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report, and by, where appropriate, raising specific questions for discussions'. Those looking to protect the minds of our children may breathe a sigh of relief. Others may be slightly alarmed that to make the pack legally-compliant has taken four days in court, solicitors and two counsel for the claimant, counsel for the Treasury Solicitor and a judge, not to mention legal costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds.



Expressing his opinion as a viewer and not a judge, Mr Justice Burton described 'An Inconvenient Truth' as 'a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film'. Perhaps the real winner in this action was not even a party - Al Gore. Burton J had 'no doubt that Dr Stott, the defendant's expert, is right where he says that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate"'. Mr Gore's crusade, the judge said, 'is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming'.



Forget persuasion, partisan politics and propaganda and let us talk publicity. An environmentally friendly bi-product of this judgment is that the energy-efficient lightbulb of the media spotlight has once again been turned on the issue of global warming. Winner of an Oscar, winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, and now tangential loser in a legal action - no doubt it is all the same to Al Gore. As the saying doesn't go: 'any partisan political persuasion is good partisan political persuasion'.