Legal challenge to Met's Freemasons policy thrown out

An attempt by Freemasons to stop the Metropolitan Police from forcing staff to declare whether they are or have been members of the organisation has been thrown out by the High Court despite claims it breaches human rights.

Mr Justice Chamberlain said the policy was a lawful and proportionate way for Scotland Yard to maintain and enhance public trust in policing.

Three bodies representing Freemasons in England, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, as well as two serving police officers who are members of the organisation, had sought to overturn the rule.

They argued that the disclosure order breached members' right to privacy, free speech and was discrimination under equality laws.

The attempted legal challenge came after the Met announced in December that officers and police staff would be required to declare internally if they were part of an organisation that had a "confidential membership, hierarchical structures and requires members to support and protect each other".

The declaration would not be public, but Met bosses told staff that they needed to know because "long-standing concerns" meant that public and staff confidence "must take precedence over the secrecy of any membership organisation".

The new policy was immediately applied to membership of the Freemasons - and most of the 397 declarations so far have been from members of the organisation.

Police chiefs told the High Court that the policy was imposed because they were concerned about the possibility of corruption if personnel were not transparent about their membership.

"It is plausible that membership of organisations such as the Freemasons between two officers, or between an officer and a member of the public they are dealing with, may give rise to a conflict of loyalties or otherwise be relevant to independence, equality, transparency and trust in police," Commander Simon Messinger told the court in a witness statement.

"A declaration could be relevant to a live criminal or misconduct investigation, or could shed light on the appropriateness of an officer or member of staff participating in a current posting.

"If we do not have the declaration information, we cannot assess or mitigate the risks of actual or perceived bias impacting such decisions."

Launching the attempt to overturn the policy, the United Grand Lodge of England and the other claimants argued that the Met had no power under police regulations to force officers to disclose membership of an organisation that was part of their private life.

They further argued that the policy unlawfully interfered with officers' rights to privacy, free speech and assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The decision to impose the policy was also said to be discrimination against a Freemason officer's beliefs under the Equality Act - and the force also had no right to hold the private information under data protection laws.

But in a 17-page ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said none of the claims made were "reasonably arguable" - putting a stop to the case before it got to a full hearing.

The senior judge said the policy was not discriminatory or "unduly stigmatising" against Freemasons.

Even if the Freemasons had been right, and the policy did interfere with officers' human rights, it was proportionate for police chiefs to ask for disclosures because they were legitimately aiming to maintain and enhance public trust.

Responding to the ruling, Commander Simon Messinger said: "We had been prepared to robustly defend our decision through the courts, so today's judgment is welcome.

"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 United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the Order of Women Freemasons and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons said in a statement that they were "disappointed" but had received assurances that only a small number of staff would have access to the list of members.

Speaking on behalf of the three groups, Adrian Marsh, grand secretary of UGLE, said: "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."

Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk