United Grand Lodge of England -v- Met Police (anonymity order / order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity OrderOrder

Claim No. AC-2025-LON-004716

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

20 March 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

(5) IPS

-v-

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS

Order

UPON the Court having made interim withholding and reporting restriction orders (“the Anonymity Orders”) in respect of the Fourth and Fifth Claimants on 2 and 29 January 2026;

AND UPON the Order of 17 February 2026 of Mr Justice Chamberlain refusing permission to apply for judicial review and refusing interim relief (for reasons contained in the judgment handed down on the same date (neutral citation [2026] EWHC 330 (Admin)) and giving directions for written submissions on the continuation of the Anonymity Orders;

AND UPON reading:
(1) the Fourth and Fifth Claimants’ Submissions on the Continuation of Anonymity Orders dated 27 February 2026; and
(2) the Defendant’s letter dated 4 March 2026 expressing neutrality on the application;

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

  1. The Anonymity Orders are to continue in force notwithstanding the final determination of these proceedings.
  2. Any application by any member of the public to vary or discharge this order must be made on 28 days’ notice to the Fourth and Fifth Claimants and is to be referred to a High Court Judge to be determined on the papers.

Reasons

  1. These proceedings were brought to challenge a requirement applicable to the Fourth and Fifth Claimants and other police officers and staff to disclose their association with the Freemasons confidentially to their professional standards unit.
  2. The claim failed at the permission stage, but there was never any suggestion that the Defendant would require the Fourth and Fifth Claimant’s association with the Freemasons to be disclosed generally to the public.
  3. I am satisfied on the basis of the Fourth and Fifth Claimant’s submissions that their association with the Freemasons is a matter in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which engages the protection of Article 8 ECHR; and that they could suffer adverse consequences if that association were disclosed.
  4. Given that the claim was heard in public and judgment was given in public, the interests of open justice have been substantially served. Any incremental interference with those interests, or with any interests of third parties that may be protected with Article 10 ECHR, is outweighed by the clear and cogent evidence filed with the claim and referred to by the Fourth and Fifth Claimants in their submissions.