United Grand Lodge of England and others -v- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004716

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

2 January 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Chamberlain

Between:

The King
on the application of
(1) UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND
(an unincorporated association, acting by ADRIAN MARSH)
(2) THE ORDER OF WOMEN FREEMASONS
(an unincorporated association, acting by JEAN MICHELE KNIGHT)
(3) HFAF LIMITED
(o/a THE HONOURABLE FRATERNITY OF ANCIENT FREEMASONS)
(4) “FSK”

-v-

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s response dated 31 December 2025

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN

  1. Interim anonymity order:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), and until further order:

(i) the Fourth Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public;

(ii) the Fourth Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as FSK.

(b) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4), and until further order, no non-party many obtain a copy of any statement of case or order which identifies the Fourth Claimant by name, unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6).

(c) The Claimants may by 9 January 2026 file and serve a response addressing the contents of the confidential witness statement of Mark Knowles and in particular:

(i) whether the Claimants (or the Fourth Claimant) breached the duty of candour and co-operation with the Court by making the application for anonymity and/or by asserting that the Fourth Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact of membership of the Freemasons (see para. 55 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds) without disclosing that this appears on a public Facebook page (see Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide §15.2); and

(ii) in the light of the answer to (i) above and in any event, whether sub- paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph should be discharged.

  1. Interim relief:

(a) The application for interim relief is adjourned to be determined on the papers, in the light of the response referred to in para. 1(c) above.

(b) The papers are to be referred to the Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court or a judge nominated by him during the week commencing 12 January 2025 for a decision on (i) whether to grant interim relief and (ii) whether to discharge paras 1(a) and (b) of this order.

(c) Insofar as the Claimants seek immediate interim relief in advance of the determination referred to at para. 2(b) above, the application is refused.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: If the Fourth Claimant’s involvement with the Freemasons has not already been publicised, disclosure of that involvement in the context of these proceedings would undermine the point of the claim, at least as it relates to the Fourth Claimant. However, the witness statement of Mark Knowles suggests that the Fourth Claimant’s involvement with the Freemasons may already be public. A short-term derogation from the principle of open justice is appropriate to preserve the right of the Fourth Claimant to respond to this witness statement. In the light of this response, the Court will consider whether to discharge the anonymity order at para. 1(a) and (b).

(2) Interim relief: The challenged decision purports to impose a requirement to disclose involvement with Masonic and other associations. The requirement is applicable immediately. It is therefore important that the question of interim relief be determined relatively quickly. However, there is no pressing need for immediate interim relief at this stage, given that (i) some 300 officers and staff have already declared their involvement in Masonic and other hierarchical associations, (ii) there is no suggestion that the Defendant plans to take any disciplinary action against any officer or staff member for not making a declaration in the next few weeks and (iii) the Defendant has agreed to consider whether to withdraw the challenged decision in the light of representations from the Second and Third Claimants. If the Claimants have breached their duty of candour, that may also be relevant to the grant of a discretionary interim remedy. The appropriate course is therefore for the question of interim relief to be determined expeditiously on the papers in the light of the Claimants’ (or Fourth Claimant’s) response to the witness statement of Mark Knowles. The direction at para. 2(b) of this order provides for this.

Signed: MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN
Date: 02/01/26