Freemasons' Legal Challenge Against Met Police Fails in High Court
A High Court judge has dismissed a legal challenge brought by Freemason organizations against the Metropolitan Police's policy requiring staff to declare membership. Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled on Tuesday that the police force's decision serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate in maintaining public trust.
The Challenge and Ruling
The challenge was brought by three Freemason bodies: the United Grand Lodge of England, the Order of Women Freemasons, and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons, along with two serving police officers who are Freemasons. They sought to challenge the Met's December announcement adding Freemason membership to its declarable associations policy.
In a 17-page ruling, Chamberlain stated that the grounds for the proposed legal challenge were not "reasonably arguable." He emphasized that the policy's purpose is to eliminate both actual bias and perceived bias in police functions, ensuring proper exercise of constabulary duties.
Policy Details and Implementation
The Metropolitan Police's policy requires officers and staff to declare membership, past or present, of any organization that is hierarchical, has confidential membership, and requires members to support each other. Approximately 400 Met officers and staff have already made declarations under this policy.
The judge noted that leaving declaration decisions to individual officers on an "ad hoc basis" would not achieve the objective of maintaining or enhancing public trust. He also stated that the policy is not discriminatory or "unduly stigmatizing" against Freemasons.
Police Response and Justification
Following the decision, Commander Simon Messinger stated 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 organizations could compromise impartiality or create conflicts of loyalty."
Messinger added that both crime victims and those reporting wrongdoing must have confidence that investigations are not tainted by such issues, prioritizing this over any organization's desire for secrecy.
Claimants' Arguments and Court Proceedings
During a hearing on February 11, lawyers for the claimants argued that the Met's decision created a "black list" and represented an "institutional signal of suspicion" that breached Freemasons' human rights. Barrister Claire Darwin KC claimed the move was based on "limited, opaque and heavily perception-driven" evidence and relied on "longstanding conspiracy theories and/or prejudicial tropes about Freemasons."
Barristers for the Metropolitan Police countered that the claim should be dismissed, stating that suggestions of a blacklist were "plainly wrong" and that employees remained "free to become or remain Freemasons."
The ruling reinforces the police force's authority to implement policies aimed at transparency and public confidence, while Freemason organizations have been unsuccessful in their attempt to challenge what they viewed as discriminatory measures against their members.
