A High Court challenge brought by Freemasonry bodies against a Metropolitan Police policy requiring officers and staff to declare their membership has been dismissed. Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled on Tuesday that the Met’s decision to add Freemasonry and similar organisations to its declarable associations policy “serves a legitimate aim, maintaining and enhancing public trust in policing, and is proportionate.”
The legal action was launched by the United Grand Lodge of England, the Order of Women Freemasons, the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons, and two serving police officers who are members of the organisation. The Met announced in December that officers and staff would be required to disclose any past or present membership in groups that are hierarchical, have confidential membership, and require members to support and protect each other.
Approximately 400 Met officers and staff have already complied with the policy, according to the force. The ruling followed a 17-page judgement from Mr Justice Chamberlain, who determined that the grounds for the challenge were not “reasonably arguable.” He stated that the policy aims to eliminate both actual and perceived bias in policing, ensuring the proper exercise of a constable’s functions.
The judge also found that the policy was not discriminatory or “unduly stigmatising” towards Freemasons. He argued that allowing officers to declare membership on an “ad hoc basis” would not adequately maintain or enhance public trust.
Commander Simon Messinger, of the Met’s Professionalism Command, welcomed the ruling. “We had been prepared to robustly defend our decision through the courts, so today’s judgment is welcome,” he said. “Our declarable associations policy was changed after feedback highlighted concerns that involvement in these types of organisations could compromise impartiality or create conflicts of loyalty. Both victims of crime and those reporting wrongdoing must have trust and confidence there is no risk that investigations are tainted by such issues. We have prioritised this over any organisation’s desire to maintain secrecy.”
The policy change stemmed from a consultation with officers and staff, which revealed that 66% believed membership in such organisations affected the perception of police impartiality, and 64% agreed or strongly agreed that it impacted public trust. The move also followed a recommendation from the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel to address the role of Freemasonry in policing.
Adrian Marsh, grand secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England, expressed disappointment with the outcome. “We maintain that we have an obligation to protect our members from discrimination, which, in our view, will do nothing to improve on the Metropolitan police’s delivery on its mandate to keep London safe by reducing crime, building public trust and upholding high standards,” he said.
During a hearing on February 11, lawyers representing the claimants argued that the Met’s decision effectively created a “blacklist.” Claire Darwin KC, representing the Freemasonry groups and officers, asserted that the policy constituted an “institutional signal of suspicion” that violated the human rights of Freemasons and was based on “limited, opaque and heavily perception-driven” evidence. She suggested the police were relying on “longstanding conspiracy theories and/or prejudicial tropes about Freemasons.”
Barristers for the Met countered these claims, stating that the suggestion of a blacklist was “plainly wrong” and that employees remained “free to become or remain Freemasons.”
