United Grand Lodge of England R (on the application of) & Ors v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

A police force may require officers and staff to confidentially disclose membership of organisations presenting a risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interest, where the requirement is designed to secure the proper exercise of policing functions. At the permission stage, an arguable interference with Convention rights does not itself require permission: the court asks whether there is a real prospect that the interference will be found unjustified. Confidential, securely held disclosure may be proportionate even where the policy operates generally and applies to past membership. A facially neutral policy is not direct discrimination merely because it affects one organisation predominantly. Predetermination requires an intense focus on the facts and a real possibility that the decision-maker had closed his or her mind to the issue.

The claimants, including governing bodies of Freemasonry and two serving Metropolitan Police officers, challenged the Commissioner’s decision to amend the Declarable Associations Policy. The amendment required officers and staff to confidentially declare current or former membership of organisations with confidential membership, hierarchical structures and reciprocal duties of support and protection.

The claim alleged lack of power, unlawful interference with Articles 8, 10 and 11 rights, unlawful processing of personal data, discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, and predetermination of the later decision to retain the policy. The claimants also sought interim relief and challenged anonymity arrangements.

1. Permission refused. None of grounds 1–6 or 8 was reasonably arguable.
2. Regulation 6(2) of the Police Regulations 2003 limits restrictions on private life but does not confer a power. The disclosure requirement was arguably a restriction, but it was designed to secure the proper exercise of constables’ functions by enabling the MPS to identify and manage actual or perceived bias. The statutory focus was the purpose of the restriction, not its necessity or proportionality.
3. Assuming without deciding that the requirement interfered with Articles 8, 10 or 11, maintaining and enhancing public confidence in policing was a legitimate aim. The interference was modest because disclosure was confidential, securely held and not routinely shared. The evidence of perceived conflicts of interest, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel recommendation and the MPS evidence justified the requirement. Its general application did not make it disproportionate, and identifying Freemasonry as an example was neither artificial nor unduly stigmatising.
4. The data-protection ground was not reasonably arguable. The MPS policy documents sufficiently identified the legal bases and proposed uses of the information. The serving claimants lacked standing to challenge processing of former members’ data, and no practical less intrusive system would achieve the stated objectives.
5. The requirement was facially neutral and therefore did not constitute direct discrimination on grounds of belief. In any event, any direct or indirect discrimination could be justified as a proportionate occupational requirement under the Equality Act 2010.
6. The predetermination ground failed. Applying the test in [2024] EWHC 3064 (Admin), the facts did not give rise to a real possibility that the Commissioner had predetermined the reconsideration.
7. Interim relief was refused. Applying [2025] EWCA Civ 848, the balance of convenience decisively favoured maintaining the policy.
8. The fourth claimant’s previous membership of a public Facebook group and failure to disclose it did not, without more, justify varying or discharging the anonymity and restricted reporting orders.