High Court challenge against Met over Freemason declaration policy thrown out
The Met announced in December that membership of the Freemasons or similar organisations would be added to its declarable associations policy
A bid by Freemasonry bodies to bring a legal challenge against the Metropolitan Police over its decision to force officers and staff to declare whether they are or have been Freemasons has been thrown out by a High Court judge.
Listen to this article
Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Tuesday that the Met’s decision “serves a legitimate aim, maintaining and enhancing public trust in policing, and is proportionate”.
Three bodies representing Freemasons in England, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, as well as two serving police officers who are Freemasons, had sought to take legal action against the force at the High Court.
It came after the Met announced in December that membership of the Freemasons or similar organisations would be added to its declarable associations policy.
This means officers and staff were required to declare membership “past or present” of any organisation that is “hierarchical, has confidential membership and requires members to support and protect each other”.
Around 400 Met officers and staff have already made declarations under the policy.
In a 17-page ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the grounds of the proposed legal challenge were not “reasonably arguable”.
He said: “The purpose of such action, and therefore the purpose of the requirement to disclose the information, is the dual one of eliminating the potential for actual bias, where officers discharge their functions improperly, and perceived bias, where there is a perception or suspicion that officers are discharging their functions improperly.
“In both cases, the requirement is, in my judgment, ‘designed to secure the proper exercise of the functions of a constable’. The contrary is not reasonably arguable.”
The judge continued that the policy was not discriminatory or “unduly stigmatising” against Freemasons.
He added that leaving the decision of whether to declare membership of the Freemasons to individual officers and staff on an “ad hoc basis” would not “achieve the object of maintaining or enhancing public trust”.
Following the decision, Commander Simon Messinger said on behalf of the Met: “We had been prepared to robustly defend our decision through the courts, so today’s judgment is welcome.
“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.”
At a hearing on February 11, lawyers for the two officers, the United Grand Lodge of England, the Order of Women Freemasons and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons asked Mr Justice Chamberlain to allow the challenge to proceed.
Claire Darwin KC, for the claimants, said that the Met’s decision allowed it to create a “black list”.
In written submissions, the barrister said that the move was an “institutional signal of suspicion” which breached Freemasons’ human rights and was based on “limited, opaque and heavily perception-driven” evidence.
She continued that the police appeared to rely on “long-standing conspiracy theories and/or prejudicial tropes about Freemasons” as a reason to introduce the measure.
Barristers for the Met said the claim should be thrown out, telling the court that the suggestion officers would be blacklisted was “plainly wrong and that employees were “free to become or remain Freemasons”.
James Berry KC, for the force, said in written submissions that claims that the decision breached officers’ and staff’s human rights were “without merit”, and that fears of stigmatisation are “not supported by the evidence”.
Discussing the “stigma associated with Freemasonry”, he said: “The defendant is not responsible for the stigma; but the defendant is responsible for addressing it, in connection with the exercise of police duties and functions by the defendant’s officers and staff, and for positively maintaining public confidence in the impartiality and transparency of the Metropolitan Police.”