The United Grand Lodge of England has decided not to appeal a High Court ruling that allows the Metropolitan Police to require officers and staff to declare their Freemasonry membership. The decision marks the end of a legal battle that began in December 2025 — but it may also mark the beginning of something else entirely.
What Happened
On 17 February 2026, Mr Justice Chamberlain refused permission for a judicial review of the Metropolitan Police’s decision to add Freemasonry to its list of declarable associations. The case — formally United Grand Lodge of England and Others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — was brought by UGLE, the Order of Women Freemasons, the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons, and two serving Met officers.
The claimants argued that the Met’s policy was unlawful, discriminatory, and breached both the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act. They contended that singling out Freemasonry created what they called an “institutional signal of suspicion” against members, and that the evidence base for the policy was thin — relying heavily on perception rather than documented wrongdoing.
The judge disagreed on all grounds. He found that the policy served a legitimate aim — maintaining and enhancing public trust in policing — and was proportionate. He ruled it was neither discriminatory nor “unduly stigmatising.”
A week later, on 24 February, UGLE announced it would not appeal. The press release, issued on behalf of all three Masonic bodies, acknowledged that the judgment “contains some legal and factual errors” but concluded that “an appeal would not be in the best interests of Freemasonry.”
The Background: Why the Met Acted
The Metropolitan Police’s decision did not emerge from nowhere. Concerns about Freemasonry’s influence within the police have surfaced repeatedly over decades, most notably in the Daniel Morgan murder case. The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which reported in 2021, described an investigation “marred by a cycle of corruption, professional incompetence, and defensiveness” and specifically recommended that the role of Freemasonry in policing be properly addressed.
More recently, the 2023 Casey Review into standards of behaviour within the Met identified systemic failures to root out discriminatory and bullying behaviour, prompting a broader push for transparency. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s reform programme made the declarable associations policy a priority.
In September 2025, the Met published a consultation asking officers and staff whether Freemasonry should be added to the declarable associations list. Over 2,000 responses came back: 66 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that membership of hierarchical organisations with confidential membership affects public perception of police impartiality. A further 64 per cent said it affects public trust.
On 11 December 2025, the Met formally added Freemasonry to the list. Officers and staff were required to declare any association — past or present — with organisations that have confidential membership, hierarchical structures, and require members to support and protect each other. The Freemasons were named explicitly.
What UGLE Won — Even in Defeat
Lost legal challenges are rarely total defeats, and this one is no exception. During the court proceedings, the Met made several important concessions that UGLE highlighted in its press release.
First, the Met confirmed that declarations data will be stored confidentially and accessible only to five senior officers. Second, the data will only be used “where relevant to consider risk management measures — e.g. to avoid or mitigate conflicts of interest, or for the purposes of criminal or misconduct investigations.” Third, and perhaps most significantly, the Met confirmed that officers and staff are free to become or remain Freemasons. No disciplinary proceedings have been started against anyone for failing to declare.
These are not trivial safeguards. Without the legal challenge, they might never have been formally stated on the record. The fear among many Masonic members was that declaration would amount to a register of suspicion — a list that could be used to discriminate in promotions, postings, or investigations. The Met’s undertakings to the court, while not eliminating that concern entirely, do establish a framework of accountability that did not exist before.
The Bigger Picture: Angiolini and Beyond
The Met’s policy exists against a wider backdrop. The Angiolini Inquiry, established in the wake of Sarah Everard’s murder by serving Met officer Wayne Couzens, is examining police recruitment, vetting, and culture in its Part 2 phase. Its recommendations to government on what disclosures should be required of police officers are expected to shape national policy — not just for London, but potentially for all 43 forces in England and Wales.
UGLE has made representations to the Inquiry, arguing that any declaration requirements should apply equally to all associations and not single out Freemasonry. That argument has a certain logic: if the concern is about secret networks influencing police work, why stop at Freemasonry? What about the Rotary Club, the Orange Order, political party memberships, or religious affiliations? The Met’s policy defines declarable organisations by three criteria — confidential membership, hierarchical structures, and mutual support obligations — but critics have pointed out that this definition could, in theory, capture a number of organisations that nobody seems particularly worried about.
UGLE’s position is that Freemasonry is being treated as a special case based on outdated stereotypes rather than evidence of actual harm. The Met’s position is that perception matters: if the public believes Freemasonry could compromise police impartiality, then policing by consent demands that the concern be addressed, regardless of whether any individual Freemason has actually done anything wrong.
“Showcasing Modern Freemasonry”
With the legal route exhausted, UGLE is pivoting to what it calls a campaign to showcase modern Freemasonry. Adrian Marsh, Grand Secretary of UGLE, said in the press release:
“Having sought to address the discriminatory impact of the Met’s decision through court proceedings, we will now redouble our work on showcasing what Freemasonry is today, its positive effect on society and the work it does for improving the lives of others. Misconceptions, which have their roots in the past, remain and we have a duty to our members to address these and explain modern Freemasonry to the public.”
This is, in essence, a public relations strategy born from legal defeat. Whether it will work depends on execution. Freemasonry has struggled for years to reconcile its traditions of discretion with a public that increasingly equates privacy with secrecy, and secrecy with wrongdoing. The fact that the Met’s internal consultation found two-thirds of its own officers and staff suspicious of Masonic influence tells its own story about the perception gap UGLE needs to close.
What This Means for Freemasons
For Met officers and staff who are Freemasons, the immediate practical effect is straightforward: declare your membership. UGLE is now actively encouraging members who held off during the legal uncertainty to comply promptly. The Met confirmed at the hearing on 11 February 2026 that approximately 400 staff had already done so.
For the wider Craft, the implications are less clear-cut. Other police forces may now follow the Met’s lead, particularly if the Angiolini Inquiry recommends a national approach. Freemasons in other public roles — the judiciary, local government, the civil service — may wonder whether similar requirements could follow.
But there is also an opportunity here. UGLE’s decision not to appeal, despite believing the judgment contains errors, suggests a pragmatic recognition that fighting this battle in court was doing more reputational harm than good. The “showcase” approach — opening doors, telling positive stories, demonstrating charitable impact — is arguably the more effective long-term strategy.
The challenge, as always, is whether the fraternity can move fast enough. Public trust is not rebuilt by press releases. It is rebuilt by consistent, visible action over time. The court case is over. The harder work is just beginning.
Related reading: Who Actually Runs English Freemasonry? A Plain-Language Guide to UGLE Governance · The Centenary Building Funds: Why Freemasonry Is Betting Its Future on Bricks and Mortar