header-logo header-logo

20 March 2026
Issue: 8154 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Disclosure , Judicial review , Bias , Human rights , Discrimination , Privacy
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Freemasons ruling backs police transparency over privacy claims

244932
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons

Critics argued this was intrusive, but the court found the policy justified, noting its aim to prevent ‘actual or perceived bias’. The ‘blanket’ requirement was not disproportionate, given the difficulty of predicting conflicts. Human rights and discrimination arguments also fell away, with the policy framed in neutral terms and serving legitimate aims.

The decision reflects a broader priority: maintaining public confidence. As concerns over hidden influence persist, the ruling signals judicial support for openness—even at the expense of some personal privacy. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll