Freemasons' Legal Challenge Against Met Police Fails in High Court
A High Court judge has dismissed a legal challenge brought by Freemasons against the Metropolitan Police's decision to compel staff to declare their membership in the organisation. The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Chamberlain, affirmed that the policy serves a legitimate aim of maintaining public trust in policing and is proportionate.
Details of the Challenge
The challenge was initiated by three bodies representing Freemasons: the United Grand Lodge of England, the Order of Women Freemasons, and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons. Additionally, two serving police officers who are Freemasons joined the legal action. They sought to contest the Met's policy, announced in December, which requires officers and staff to declare any past or present membership in hierarchical organisations with confidential membership and mutual support obligations.
In a 17-page ruling, Chamberlain stated that the grounds for the proposed legal challenge were not "reasonably arguable." He explained that the policy's purpose is to eliminate both actual and perceived bias in policing functions, ensuring proper exercise of duties. The judge emphasised that the requirement is designed to secure impartiality and does not discriminate against Freemasons or unduly stigmatise them.
Policy Implementation and Response
Approximately 400 Metropolitan Police officers and staff have already made declarations under the new policy. Commander Simon Messinger, speaking on behalf of the Met, welcomed the judgment, stating that the force was prepared to robustly defend its decision. He highlighted that the policy change followed feedback indicating concerns that involvement in such organisations could compromise impartiality or create conflicts of loyalty.
Messinger added, "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."
Arguments from Both Sides
During a hearing on 11 February, Claire Darwin KC, representing the claimants, argued that the Met's decision effectively created a "black list" and sent an "institutional signal of suspicion." She contended that the move breached Freemasons' human rights and was based on "limited, opaque and heavily perception-driven" evidence, relying on conspiracy theories and prejudicial tropes.
In contrast, barristers for the Metropolitan Police argued that the claim should be dismissed, asserting that the suggestion of a blacklist was "plainly wrong" and that employees remain free to become or stay as Freemasons. They maintained that the policy is necessary to uphold public trust and transparency within the force.
The judge concluded that leaving the declaration decision to individual officers on an ad hoc basis would not achieve the objective of enhancing public trust, reinforcing the need for a structured policy.
