Freemasons Met Policy Challenge

Published: 29 December 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Freemasons have urgently filed for a high court injunction against the Metropolitan Police’s new directive. The policy, introduced in December, requires officers to declare if they are members of hierarchical organisations, including the Freemasons. Legal representatives for the Freemasons argue the mandate amounts to religious discrimination, asserting it unfairly targets members whose involvement requires a commitment to faith. The organisation’s leadership claims the policy undermines human rights protections, and they are seeking a judicial review to have it scrapped.

The injunction was filed on Christmas Eve in London, with Freemasons alleging that Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley is “making up the law on the hoof” while promoting unfounded conspiracy theories about the influence of secret societies. The Freemasons insist that the policy was imposed without effective consultation, describing it as illegal, unfair, and prejudicial against members. Adrian Marsh, chief executive of the Grand Lodge, said the hearing could take place as early as next month. If successful, the injunction would temporarily halt the policy pending full judicial review.

The Met has justified the directive as part of efforts to protect the force’s credibility and public trust. Officials argue that hierarchical organisations requiring members to support each other could compromise impartiality, and two-thirds of surveyed officers agreed the policy was necessary to maintain confidence in policing. The force cited historical claims linking Masonic membership to corruption, although no allegations have reached criminal conviction. A recent investigation reportedly contains claims of possible masonic influence, prompting renewed scrutiny.

Marsh contends that requiring Freemasons to disclose membership breaches the human rights of officers, citing the religious basis of Freemasonry as a protected characteristic. “The consultation process was wholly inadequate, prejudicial and unjust,” he said, noting that officers have been advised to seek guidance from the Police Federation, which also opposes the policy. Legal correspondence from the Met suggests an agreement for further consultation, reinforcing claims that the policy was prematurely imposed.

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson confirmed awareness of the judicial review and affirmed the force would defend the changes to the declarable association policy. “These amendments followed feedback that involvement in such organisations could call impartiality into question or create conflicts of interest,” the spokesperson said. No further comment will be provided while proceedings are ongoing.

The role of Freemasons within the Met has been a longstanding issue, with previous commissioners weighing the costs and benefits of stricter rules. Historical intelligence documents have highlighted the potential for corruption through personal relationships formed via Freemasonry, but criminal standards of proof have never been met. Allegations of cover-ups linked to the organisation’s ethos of mutual loyalty have persisted, drawing scrutiny from inquiries and investigators over decades.

The 1987 Daniel Morgan murder case remains a touchstone in debates over Freemasonry’s role in policing. An official inquiry revealed that ten officers involved in the investigation were Freemasons, including a detective who later worked with a prime suspect. While the panel found no evidence that masonic networks were used to commit or obstruct crimes, it recommended tighter rules on membership disclosure. Police lodges such as the Manor of St James’s and Sine Favore have continued to operate, with members maintaining long-standing fraternal connections.

As the judicial process unfolds, the dispute underscores the tension between institutional transparency, public confidence, and individual rights. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how membership in private organisations intersects with professional obligations and the protection of personal freedoms. Legal observers note that the case’s reliance on human rights arguments could shape future policies regarding religious and fraternal associations within public services.

The injunction sought by the Freemasons represents a critical test of the Met’s authority to enforce membership declarations, potentially influencing policing standards across the United Kingdom. Marsh emphasised that the policy risks unjustly impugning the integrity of officers solely based on their private affiliations. The Met, meanwhile, maintains that preserving impartiality and avoiding conflicts of loyalty remain central to public trust.

As both sides prepare for court proceedings, the broader debate over secrecy, accountability, and the influence of private organisations in public institutions continues. The decision may have far-reaching consequences, impacting police conduct, organisational transparency, and the boundaries between private belief and public service. With the injunction hearing anticipated soon, the case remains a focal point in discussions of fairness, discrimination, and governance in modern policing.