United Grand Lodge
of Antient, Free and Accepted Masons
of England


 
Province of
South Wales Eastern Division

News

 


Landmark Court Ruling upholds
the integrity of Freemasonry

There have been very few cases under English Law which have directly considered the place of Freemasonry and Freemasons in public life.

Conspiracy theorists and an ill-informed media (and Freemasonry itself must take some responsibility for the latter) have often questioned the partiality of Masons and, indeed, the alleged effect of movement itself in public affairs.

The Times April 06, 2006 Judge backs Freemasons' role By Frances Gibb THE role of Masons in public life won the backing of a High Court judge, who yesterday dismissed claims that the order’s secretive ways made Freemasonry an unhealthy influence on officialdom. Mr Justice Newman accepted that there was still a perception that Freemasonry could give rise to apparent bias in decisionmaking. But he concluded that Masons holding public positions did not need to remove themselves from decisions involving other Masons. The judge said that “Freemasonry is not a religion” and that although members of the order agreed to give “succour” to “brother Masons”, they were subject to the “uncompromising and clear” principle that they must pay “due obedience” to the laws of the land. Mr Justice Newman upheld North Dorset District Council’s decision to give planning consent to an application for a change of use of farming land to a showground in Motcombe in Dorset by the Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Society. He dismissed arguments that there was an “appearance of bias” because two of the members who voted in favour of the scheme were members of Masonic lodges.

However, the case of Regina (Port Regis School Ltd) -v- North Dorset District Council [2006] EWHC 742 (Admin) directly addressed not just the particular case, but the whole subject in principle. The case was reported in The Times newspaper (reproduced opposite). Mr Justice Newman's full written judgment can be viewed here.

This ruling sets out once and for all the true nature of Freemasonry and its effect upon public life. Mr Justice Newman (who is not a Freemason) acknowledged and accepted that:

'Everyone who enters Freemasonry is, at the outset, strictly forbidden to countenance any act which may have a tendency to subvert the peace and good order of society; he must pay due obedience to the law of any state in which he resides or which may afford him protection, and he must never be remiss in the allegiance due to the Sovereign of his native land'.

He considered that a fair minded appraisal had to be made of (amongst others) the following:

1. The Masonic principles of mutual defence and mutual support did not suggest unquestioning support under any circumstances. For instances, a mason 'must not engage in offences contrary to the laws of God and the ordinances of the realm'.

2. The information and guidance given to Masons includes advice on the need for declarations of interest to be made including, where appropriate, membership of Freemasonry.

3. The councillors in question were required by law and by their Freemasonry to adhere to the legal obligations imposed on them by the Local Government Act.

4. Freemasonry does not require a Freemason in local government to be partial to any other Freemason. Freemasonry underpins the requirements of impartiality and fairness set by the law.

5. Lord Bingham in Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 65 considered that ordinarily, Masonic associations would not require a judge to recuse himself. Also, Lord Irvine, former Lord Chancellor, did not accept that the oaths of mutual assistance were incompatible with the judicial oath.

In the circumstances, Mr Justice Newman concluded in the circumstances of the particular case that the Freemasonry of the members in question did not give rise to apparent bias in the decision of the full Council to grant the planning consent it did.

Port Regis is significant for us since it addresses directly the issue of Freemasonry in local government decision-making (and, one would hope, beyond). We would, however, always advise our members to proudly declare their membership, especially where there may be a perception of bias. Any such incorrect perceptions should then be challenged - exactly as was done in this case.