[2025] UKUT 308 (AAC)

The Commissioner argues that the submission that the First-tier Tribunal failed to consider the public interest of parents of children attending the Session is puzzling. The Appellant’s arguments overlook that, in paragraphs 152 to 156 of the Tribunal’s reasons, it recognised a number of public interest factors relating to parental awareness of teaching materials used. The Tribunal’s references to “parents” clearly meant parents of children attending the Session, otherwise attending the School and/or children who might have been taught by SoSE at another school.

The argument that the First-tier Tribunal should not have given weight to SoSE’s offer to ‘run through’ the Slides with parents, because the offer was not communicated to the Appellant, overlooks that (a) the Appellant was able to view the Slides in the meeting with the Trust’s CEO on 4 November 2021 (while she describes this process as inappropriate, at the time she did not seek a further run-through or meeting); and (b) the Appellant did not pursue the CEO’s suggestion that she contact SoSE in order to seek access to the Slides. The argument that the Tribunal failed to take account of, or give sufficient weight to, the limitations of a ‘run-through’ ignores the findings in paragraph 158 of the Tribunal’s reasons which accepted a ‘residual public interest’ in disclosure of the Slides that was not met by a run-through.