Freemasons' Legal Challenge Against Metropolitan Police Declaration Policy Fails in High Court

High Court Upholds Metropolitan Police Policy

A legal challenge against the Metropolitan Police's decision to compel officers and staff to declare their membership in the Freemasons has been dismissed by the High Court in London. On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, Mr. Justice Chamberlain ruled in favour of the Met, stating that the policy 'serves a legitimate aim, maintaining and enhancing public trust in policing, and is proportionate'.

The ruling rejected all grounds for a judicial review, including claims of discrimination and breaches of the Human Rights Act, finding them not 'reasonably arguable'.

Background to the Policy Change

The Metropolitan Police updated its declarable associations policy in December, prior to the legal challenge. This policy mandates that officers and staff declare 'past or present' membership of any organisation that is hierarchical, maintains confidential membership, and requires members to support and protect each other. Freemasonry was specifically named as such an organisation.

The Met's rationale for the policy change stems from feedback highlighting concerns that involvement in such organisations could 'compromise impartiality or create conflicts of loyalty'. Commander Simon Messinger, from the Met's Professionalism department, stated, 'Both victims of crime and those reporting wrongdoing must have trust and confidence there is no risk that investigations are tainted by such issues.' The force also noted that the move followed a consultation where a significant majority of respondents felt membership of such organisations affects the perception of police impartiality and public trust. Recommendations from the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel had also called for the role of Freemasonry in policing to be addressed.

Freemasons' Arguments and Court's Decision

The legal action was brought by three prominent Freemasonry bodies: the United Grand Lodge of England, the Order of Women Freemasons, and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons, alongside two serving police officers who are members of the organisation. They argued that the Met's decision was unlawful, unfair, discriminatory, and breached human rights, effectively creating a 'blacklist' of members. Lawyers for the claimants contended that the policy was an 'institutional signal of suspicion' based on 'limited, opaque and heavily perception-driven' evidence.

However, Mr. Justice Chamberlain's 17-page ruling concluded that the policy was not discriminatory or 'unduly stigmatising' against Freemasons. He emphasised that the requirement is 'designed to secure the proper exercise of the functions of a constable' by eliminating the potential for actual and perceived bias.

Implications and Next Steps

The Met welcomed the judgment, with Commander Messinger reiterating the force's commitment to transparency, stating, 'We have prioritised this over any organisation's desire to maintain secrecy.' Approximately 350 to 400 Met officers and staff have already declared their membership under the new policy.

The Freemasonry groups involved in the challenge have expressed disappointment with the outcome and are currently considering their 'further legal options'.