Written by In March 2025, ten women – among them doctors, a nurse, and a nuclear industry whistleblower – launched a legal challenge against the UK’s judicial watchdog. They allege that an employment judge, Philip Lancaster, bullied and biased proceedings in their cases, yet the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) refused to investigate.[^1] One complainant, Alison McDermott, says her whistleblowing claims about a toxic workplace culture at the Sellafield nuclear facility were thrown out by Judge Lancaster.[^2] Now backed by the Good Law Project, the women argue this failure of oversight reveals a deeper problem: an institutional reluctance to hold insiders to account. Their fight is the latest in a series of troubling cases suggesting that UK whistleblowers in court or tribunal settings face not just their opponents, but potentially a hidden web of loyalties. Critics point to a persistent ‘old boys’ club’ dynamic – opaque networks of influence, possibly including Freemasonry – that may be shielding misconduct and skewing the scales of justice.[^3] [^4]
Such concerns are not new. A generation ago, Parliament examined whether secretive fraternities like the Freemasons were undermining trust in policing and the courts. In 1997–99, the Home Affairs Committee (HAC) conducted an unprecedented inquiry into Freemasonry within the police and judiciary. It culminated in strong recommendations to lift the cloak of secrecy and prevent conflicts of interest in public service.[^5] Yet decades later, many of those transparency measures have been watered down or quietly shelved, even as fresh allegations of bias and cover-ups emerge. This investigative article revisits those historic reforms and examines recent whistleblower cases to assess whether undisclosed Masonic influence could still be tilting the playing field. We draw on credible sources – government reports, court documents, investigative journalism and advocacy groups – to separate fact from fiction. The picture that emerges is sharply critical and fact-based: while no ‘grand conspiracy’ is proven, systemic gaps in transparency and accountability leave room for real or perceived conflicts of loyalty to fester. Whistleblowers and reformers warn that without sunlight, justice can suffer – and public faith in the system erodes.
The 1997–99 Home Affairs Committee Inquiry: Transparency vs. Secrecy
In the late 1990s, alarm over potential Freemason influence prompted Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee to investigate. The HAC’s findings, published in reports in 1998 and 1999, confirmed that secret society membership by police or judges posed a risk of apparent bias.[^6] [^7] The Committee stopped short of endorsing wild conspiracy theories – it noted ‘nothing in the evidence we have heard that would appear sinister’ in a judge or policeman also being a Freemason – but it did highlight the perception problem. Even if Freemasons act lawfully, their secrecy fuels public suspicions of backroom mutual favouritism.[^8] Thus, the HAC concluded, the solution is disclosure. It made a landmark recommendation: ‘police officers, magistrates, judges and crown prosecutors should be required to register membership of any secret society and that the record should be publicly available’.[^9] In other words, no more hidden handshakes in positions of public trust.
The government initially accepted these recommendations in full. In February 1998, the Home Office – under then-Home Secretary Jack Straw – agreed that all new appointments to the police, judiciary, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), probation service and prison service must declare any membership in Freemasonry or similar secret orders.[^10] The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the governing body of Freemasonry, was asked to cooperate in establishing public registers. The intent was clear: to shine light on networks that could otherwise operate behind closed doors. As John Barwell, a legal analyst, observes, the HAC sought to ‘enhance transparency and mitigate potential conflicts of interest’ through mandatory disclosure.
Implementing these ideals, however, proved arduous. Almost immediately, practical and legal obstacles emerged. The UGLE, protective of its members’ privacy, was ‘hesitant to provide comprehensive membership lists’, undermining creation of a full register. Data protection laws raised concerns about storing and publishing individuals’ affiliations. And crucially, the scheme relied partly on voluntary disclosure: only new appointees would be compelled to declare, leaving thousands of incumbent judges, magistrates and officers to come forward on their own honour. The result was incomplete and patchy compliance. By 1999, it was evident that voluntary registration had largely flopped. Internal police surveys yielded meagre results – only 3 out of 43 police forces had even set up a Freemason register, and in one such force (Derbyshire) just one officer out of 1,700 had declared himself a Mason. At the CPS, a nationwide questionnaire to 2,097 prosecutors netted a mere nine self-declarations (two of whom said they’d since lapsed), while nearly half of all those asked refused to say or ignored the form. The Lord Chancellor’s Department had marginally better uptake from judges – by 1999, 263 judges admitted being Freemasons, versus about 4,744 stating they were not – but dozens of judges either refused to disclose or never responded. These figures underscored the HAC’s concern: absent compulsion, the ‘old boys’ club’ stays underground.
Nonetheless, the partial registers did shed some light. They confirmed that Freemasonry had a significant presence in the justice system – roughly ‘one in 20 judges’ (5%) in England and Wales turned out to be Freemasons, according to one MP’s summary.[^11] [^12] And at least one case illustrated why this matters: in 1999 a former Metropolitan Police officer was jailed for attempting to use his Masonic connections to interfere in a criminal trial. Even though the HAC ultimately found no proof that Freemasonry caused specific miscarriages of justice, it warned that undisclosed ties could ‘give rise to apparent bias in decision-making’ and erode public trust. The Committee’s core message was that transparency is the price of impartiality – an up-front declaration of Masonic membership would neutralise suspicions before they could take root.
Reform Reversed: The Quiet Shelving of Mandatory Disclosure
For a brief period, the late 1990s reforms nudged the doors open. Police forces began drafting policies; judges filling out appointment forms had to check a box for secret society membership. However, this momentum did not last. Over the 2000s, the push for Masonic transparency stalled – and then, in 2009, it was officially abandoned.
The turning point came when Freemasonry’s leadership mounted a counter-offensive. Citing privacy and discrimination concerns, the United Grand Lodge threatened to take the UK Government to court over the disclosure rules.[^13] [^14] Their case leaned on recent European case law: in 2007 the European Court of Human Rights had ruled against Italy for demanding public disclosure of lodge memberships.[^15] UGLE argued that Britain’s policy might likewise breach the right to free association. Rather than fight a costly legal battle, the Government capitulated. In November 2009, Justice Secretary Jack Straw – the same official who championed the register in 1998 – announced he was scrapping the mandatory Freemason declaration for judges.[^16] [^17]
Straw’s U-turn was delivered via a written ministerial statement with little fanfare, but it drew sharp criticism from some in Parliament. Labour MP Gordon Prentice blasted the reversal as ‘a disgrace’, warning it would restore a ‘cloak of secrecy’ around Freemason judges.[^18] [^19] ‘We know that one in 20 of our judges are Freemasons. Why on earth [bring back] the cloak of secrecy?’ Prentice demanded in the Commons.[^20] In response, Straw insisted there had been ‘no evidence of impropriety or malpractice’ by any Masonic judges and that continuing the register would be ‘disproportionate’ given the legal doubts.[^21] [^22] He noted that judges remained free to voluntarily declare their affiliation – but there would be no obligation to do so.[^23] In essence, the policy swung from ‘must tell’ to ‘need not ask’.
From that point onward, no public body would systematically track Freemasonry in the judiciary or police. The Judicial Appointments Commission, formed in 2006, pointedly does not ask candidates if they are Freemasons (or members of any private society).[^24] [^25] A 2012 Freedom of Information request by a litigant trying to discover if two employment judges were Freemasons came up empty – the JAC replied it ‘does not hold this information’ because such questions are not part of the appointments process.[^26] [^27] Likewise in policing: despite the HAC’s recommendations, no law was ever passed to compel officers to register lodge memberships. Some forces established internal disclosure policies, but compliance remained voluntary and uneven. Over time, interest waned and the issue slipped from the spotlight. The HAC’s final report in 1999 had urged follow-up scrutiny; in practice, no subsequent government inquiry revisited Freemasonry’s role in public life. As Barwell notes, many of the late-90s reforms were left ‘partially implemented and unresolved’, quietly receding in the 2000s as official attention turned elsewhere.
By the 2010s, the situation had come full circle. Freemasonry was again a private matter for those in power, just as it had been before 1998. This retreat did not erase the underlying concern, however. It merely removed the official spotlight. In the absence of transparency mechanisms, whispers of Masonic influence never fully went away – they simply moved to the margins, voiced by whistleblowers, investigative journalists, or crusading MPs rather than government committees. As one commentator quipped, the ‘funny handshake club’ had been given a free pass to return to the shadows.[^28] [^29]
Importantly, the decision to halt disclosure requirements has itself faced no public review since 2009. It was justified on legal grounds (avoiding an adverse human rights judgement) and on an ostensibly clean bill of health for the judiciary (‘no evidence’ of Masonic misdeeds). But that conclusion – no evidence of wrongdoing – is impossible to test when the information on membership is no longer gathered. It created a kind of blind spot: if Masonic influence did quietly factor into a case or career, the lack of records would ensure it stayed hidden. Some critics argue this was precisely the point. ‘It is open to any judge to declare that they are Freemasons’, Straw said in 2009.[^30] In practice, few if any do, and the public has no way of knowing otherwise. The expected outcome, as Prentice warned, was a return to opacity – a scenario ripe for either actual abuse of fraternal loyalties or the festering of public mistrust in the absence of facts.
Whistleblowers and Watchdogs: Is the ‘Old Boys’ Club’ Still Alive?
More than twenty-five years after the HAC’s inquiry, how much has changed? On paper, Britain’s justice institutions insist that secret allegiances do not compromise their integrity. In reality, credible allegations by whistleblowers and observers suggest that ‘old boys’ networks’ – of various kinds – continue to influence policing and judicial outcomes, sometimes in ways that shield insiders from accountability. While direct evidence of Masonic bias is elusive (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the lack of disclosure), the patterns of behaviour in certain cases echo the very concerns the HAC tried to address. Consider the following contemporary developments:
Police Whistleblowers vs. Masonic Networks: In 2018, a decorated undercover officer from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) went public with claims that Freemasons in the force had sabotaged his career in retaliation for suspected whistleblowing.[^31] [^32] Garry Rogers – a highly commended officer who infiltrated violent criminal gangs – was due for the prestigious Queen’s Police Medal. But his initial nomination mysteriously disappeared. Rogers says it was ‘shredded by someone within CID’ because certain senior officers (whom he ‘believe[s] were masons’) wrongly thought he had blown the whistle on a fellow Mason’s corruption.[^33] [^34] He eventually received the medal years late, only after an internal inquiry confirmed that something was amiss. According to Rogers, top brass privately acknowledged that Masonic colleagues may indeed have tried to block his commendation.[^35] [^36] He also discovered a false report in his personnel file labelling him untrustworthy and under investigation – a baseless smear he suspects was planted to stall his advancement.[^37] Rogers’ story, reported in the Telegraph, bolsters a longstanding accusation: that Freemason police officers protect each other and punish those who threaten the brotherhood.[^38] [^39] ‘I think there’s still a problem with masons in the police… Their loyalty should be to the law and the public, not each other’, Rogers insists.[^40] [^41]
Reform Blocked ‘to this day’: Rogers’ experience is not an isolated gripe. The same year, the outgoing head of the Police Federation (the staff association for rank-and-file officers) dropped a bombshell in the national press. Steve White told The Guardian that he and colleagues suspected Freemasons within policing were ‘hampering reforms’ and ‘obstructing’ the progress of women and minority officers. ‘I find it odd… that there are pockets of the organisation where a significant number of representatives are Freemasons’, White said, describing how efforts to modernise policing culture had met mysterious resistance. This frank warning from a senior insider made headlines. It prompted a rare public response from the Freemasons’ governing body. Dr. David Staples, chief executive of the UGLE, wrote to major newspapers denying that Freemasonry was ‘blocking’ police reform. Freemasons, he argued, are being unfairly maligned – ‘openly discriminated against’ for their private beliefs. Staples noted that police officers have the same right to join fraternal orders as anyone, and he insisted ‘we do not influence the police… [we] have high moral principles and values’. In support, Masonic advocates often cite the HAC’s own conclusion that much public fear of Freemasonry is ‘unjustified paranoia’.[^42] But the tension between these two narratives – whistleblowers alleging clandestine collusion vs. Freemasons claiming persecution – is telling. It illustrates how, absent transparent disclosure, the integrity of institutions is judged by anecdote and suspicion.
Accountability Gaps in the Judiciary: In the courts, the ‘old boys’ club’ charge has resurfaced in a slightly different form. Here the focus is less on Freemason lodges specifically and more on a broader culture of insularity and unaccountability among the senior judiciary. The Lancaster whistleblower case from Leeds (introduced earlier) is a stark example. Despite multiple Tribunal rulings being overturned on appeal and higher courts deeming his remarks ‘troubling’, Judge Lancaster faced no public discipline.[^43] [^44] Complainants describe him shouting lawyers down, mocking women litigants, and routinely ‘blocking’ evidence he didn’t want to hear.[^45] Yet for three years, the JCIO – the body meant to police judicial conduct – delayed and ultimately dismissed the complaints against him.[^46] Only after the women united and went to the High Court did the matter come under scrutiny. To observers, this raises the question: was Lancaster ‘protected’ by virtue of being an insider? The JCIO is staffed by fellow judges and operates largely in secret (indeed it even claims exemption from Freedom of Information laws).[^47] It exemplifies a situation ripe for the appearance of an old boys’ network, whether or not Freemasonry per se is involved. When a judge accused of serious misconduct by numerous unrelated people is effectively given a pass, whistleblower advocates see a system protecting its own. As one of Lancaster’s victims lamented, ‘I came to court because I was being bullied by a man, only to be bullied by another man’.[^48] [^49] It is exactly this kind of double injustice – a whistleblower mistreated, then her complaints buried – that corrodes confidence in the judiciary’s independence. Such episodes feed the perception that behind the lofty rhetoric of impartiality, informal alliances and loyalties can conspire to suppress the truth.
‘Secret Soundings’ in Appointments: Even before misbehaving judges reach a misconduct hearing, critics point to inherent bias in how judges are chosen and promoted. In July 2023, the Law Society (the solicitors’ professional body) publicly condemned the judicial appointments process as ‘secretive’ and prone to ‘old boys’ network’ influences.[^50] [^51] At issue is the practice of ‘statutory consultation’ – where committees solicit confidential opinions from senior judges about candidates for the bench. This long-standing tradition (colloquially known as taking ‘secret soundings’) was meant to gauge suitability, but the Law Society warns it ‘plays to old boys’ networks’ and perpetuates a self-replicating club.[^52] [^53] Because women, ethnic minorities, and solicitors (as opposed to barristers) historically have had fewer contacts among the elite judiciary, they are at a disadvantage in this whispering system.[^54] [^55] Lubna Shuja, president of the Law Society, called for urgent reform, arguing the consultation process ‘is not working fairly or transparently at the moment’.[^56] [^57] An unnamed Law Society source put it bluntly: ‘Having secret soundings risks bias being built into the system’.[^58] In effect, the pipeline for new judges may favour those who are ‘in the club’ – whether that club is defined by class, school ties, or indeed fraternal ties like Freemasonry. Notably, in scrapping the Freemason register in 2009, Jack Straw said any conflict was purely hypothetical because ‘any judge can declare’ their affiliations.[^59] But if the very selection of judges is influenced by closed-door endorsements, the public never even knows what affiliations might exist, declared or not. The concern is that a judge with, say, significant Masonic connections could be viewed favourably by older Masonic judges in these consultations – a subtle bias that would go entirely undocumented. This underscores how transparency deficits at multiple levels (appointments, conduct oversight, etc.) intertwine to sustain an opaque culture. A former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, once acknowledged the risk: ‘perceptions of freemasonry as a secret society… are clearly at odds with the concept of public service transparency’. Today, those perceptions remain potent.
Freemasons and Institutional Failures: Finally, some recent whistleblower revelations in policing suggest that loyalty to ‘brothers’ can trump duty to the public when misconduct is on the line. In January 2025, a Channel 4 News investigation (corroborated by The Times and Yorkshire Post) reported that the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) soft-pedalled an inquiry into the Rotherham grooming gang scandal to avoid implicating senior officers. A lead investigator on the case, Garry Harper, turned whistleblower and testified he was explicitly ‘instructed not to look at senior officers’ during the probe.[^60] The IOPC’s seven-year Operation Linden ended up holding mainly junior officers accountable for the catastrophic failure to stop child abuse in Rotherham, while several high-ranking figures retired with reputations intact. Harper’s shocking account indicates a deliberate effort to shield powerful individuals from scrutiny, regardless of evidence. While the reports did not name Freemasonry, veteran police whistleblowers note that South Yorkshire Police (like many forces) has historically had a strong Masonic presence. They suspect that fraternal bonds or similar elite allegiances influenced the decision to spare top brass.[^61] [^62] As one campaign group put it, this case ‘confirms what many ex-police whistleblowers have been saying for years: that Freemasons in the police are mainly exempt from scrutiny or being held to account, even when exposed for serious wrongdoing’.[^63] Those claims are difficult to independently verify. Yet it is precisely the opacity of such situations – secret orders given in an internal investigation, never documented in public – that allows speculation to flourish. The end result in Rotherham was an accountability failure so severe that survivors filed official complaints and MPs demanded answers. Whether due to Masonic influence or not, the whiff of a cover-up was unmistakable. And where there’s a cover-up involving police leadership in the UK, the spectre of Freemasonry is never far behind in the public imagination.
Transparency on Trial: Closing the Gaps
The cases above, taken together, paint a troubling picture of institutional inertia and opacity. To be clear, none of them outright prove a clandestine Masonic cabal is running the justice system. But they do show how easily abuses or biases can hide behind closed doors – and how decades of half-measures on transparency have left critical blind spots. Each new allegation of judicial bullying unchecked, or police corruption unpunished, immediately begs the question: was there an undisclosed connection or loyalty at play? With no disclosure requirements, answering that question is often impossible. This erodes confidence in the fairness of outcomes. ‘Doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary and police undermine confidence in the rule of law’, Barwell observes, noting that lingering suspicions of an ‘old boys’ club’ have ‘tangible effects on public trust’.
Recent developments show some glimmers of accountability – but also resistance. In 2021, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which investigated Britain’s most notorious unsolved police corruption murder, recommended that police officers should finally be required to declare Freemasonry memberships (albeit confidentially to their chief constable).[^64] [^65] The panel found ‘no evidence that Masonic channels were corruptly used’ in the Morgan case itself, but given that several suspects and officers involved were Freemasons, it concluded that ‘policing still needs to consider how it registers potential conflicts of interest’.[^66] [^67] In 2023, however, the Home Office’s official response balked at new legislation, citing a ‘lack of evidence’ that a register would help and deferring to ongoing police reviews of conflict-of-interest policy.[^68] This lukewarm reply suggests the government remains reluctant to revisit the Freemasonry issue, despite high-profile scandals. Meanwhile, in January 2024, MP Tonia Antoniazzi introduced a Private Member’s Bill to require police officers to declare memberships in organisations that could affect impartiality.[^69] [^70] In her speech to Parliament, she explicitly cited the 1997 HAC report’s recommendations and lamented that after 25 years, those calls for transparency had not been fully realised.[^71] [^72] ‘Old boys’ clubs have always existed within the police, and they can take many shapes’, Antoniazzi warned, noting that secretive groups of ‘like-minded individuals that look out for their own’ still pose a risk.[^73] [^74] Her bill seeks a publicly accessible register of police officers’ affiliations – essentially resurrecting the HAC’s idea for the modern era.[^75] [^76] As of this writing, the bill faces an uphill struggle to become law without government backing. Yet the very fact it was brought forward – with cross-party support – signals that the issue has gained renewed urgency in light of cases like those discussed.
What more can be done? Experts and advocates propose several measures to close the transparency gaps:
Reinstating Disclosure (with Privacy Protections): Many argue it is time to reinstate mandatory disclosure of Freemasonry (and similar) affiliations for key public officials – but in a way that balances privacy concerns. One idea is to require confidential registration (as the Morgan Panel suggested for police) rather than public lists. This would allow investigators or courts to flag potential conflicts without broadcasting memberships to the world, thus likely satisfying human rights constraints.[^77] [^78] Modern data security could ensure only authorised checks (e.g. by a presiding judge or independent ombudsman) access the information, on a need-to-know basis.[^79] [^80] The goal is to remove the ‘hidden’ aspect of any brotherhood ties. As one police commissioner put it, ‘if members of a club or society have to disclose, it takes away any hidden agendas’.[^81] The HAC’s original intent was not to bar Freemasons from service, but to put any potential overlapping loyalties out in the open. Updating that approach for the 2020s could mean, for example, that a judge assigned a whistleblower’s case quietly discloses to court administrators if he and the defendant’s CEO belong to the same lodge – so the case can be reassigned or the parties notified. Right now, no such mechanism exists.
Strengthening Watchdog Independence: The Lancaster case and others reveal serious flaws in how judicial and police misconduct is investigated. Ensuring independent oversight is key. The JCIO could be reformed to include lay members or ombudsmen with no ties to the judiciary, to counteract any internal camaraderie that might deter robust action. Likewise, the IOPC must be empowered – or compelled – to follow evidence wherever it leads, including into chief officers’ offices. Whistleblower Trisha Napier’s statement about the IOPC’s self-investigation dismissing her claims of interference speaks volumes: ‘when the watchdog fails there also needs to be real accountability to stop the slide in public confidence’. Whistleblower protection organisations like Protect argue for a statutory duty to investigate raised concerns, so that agencies cannot easily brush off or bury whistleblowing reports. In practice, this could mean judicial misconduct panels must publish summaries of complaints and outcomes (sans identifying details) to shed light on whether patterns exist (for instance, if multiple litigants independently allege bias by a judge who belongs to a certain society). Transparency here serves as a disinfectant: it reassures the public that complaints aren’t vanishing into a black hole.
Merit-Based Judicial Selection: To break any vestiges of the patronage or fraternal promotion culture, reformers call for full meritocracy and openness in appointing judges. The Law Society’s recommendation to abolish or radically reform ‘secret soundings’ is a start.[^82] [^83] The Judicial Appointments Commission could rely instead on documented references, interviews, and observable track records. If consultation with judges is necessary, it should be done transparently and focus on objective criteria. In an era where diversity and inclusion are championed, the judiciary must cast off perceptions that it is a self-perpetuating gentlemen’s club. The dramatic underrepresentation of women, Black, and non-barrister candidates on the bench – men still outnumber women 2:1 among court judges[^84] – underscores that the current system, whatever its intent, ‘is not working fairly’.[^85] By opening up the process, it not only broadens talent but also dilutes the influence of any one network (be it an alumni network, a social club, or a Masonic lodge). A judiciary that looks more like the public it serves is inherently less susceptible to accusations of backroom bias.
Ultimately, the core principle is sunlight. Whether the concern is Freemasonry or any other informal alliance, the best defence against undue influence is to expose potential conflicts early and often. Sir Kenneth Newman, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, perhaps said it best decades ago in advice to his officers: ‘the discerning officer will forgo the prospect of pleasure and social advantage in freemasonry so as to enjoy the unreserved regard of those around him’. In other words, an officer (or judge) should be willing to sacrifice secret perks for the sake of public trust. If they choose not to forgo membership, then at the very least that choice should be knowable to their superiors and, in relevant circumstances, to the public.
Conclusion
The British justice system’s legitimacy rests on the simple idea that no one is above the law and every litigant gets a fair hearing on the merits. Whistleblowers – who often challenge powerful institutions or expose corruption – are a litmus test of that ideal. Their cases, by their nature, pit truth-tellers against entrenched interests. When such cases collapse or vanish under dubious circumstances, it sends a chilling message. The ongoing allegations of judicial misconduct, bias, or institutional failure in whistleblowing cases have shone a spotlight on the unseen gears of our justice system. Are outcomes determined solely by evidence and law, or are they swayed by who shares a lodge handshake with whom? The lack of transparency makes it hard to be sure. What we do know, from the evidence assembled, is that attempts to mandate openness about Freemasonry and similar networks were never fully implemented – and that void has been filled by persistent whispers of impropriety.
From the HAC’s earnest recommendations in 1997, largely unheeded, to the credible claims of 2020s whistleblowers, a through-line emerges: secrecy breeds mistrust. Perhaps Freemasonry itself is not the shadowy puppet-master some imagine; indeed, many Freemasons in public service no doubt act with honour and do keep their civic oaths above fraternal oaths. The tragedy is that by clinging to secrecy, they invite people to assume the worst. And in some instances, as we’ve seen, the worst fears may have materialised – with Masonic or old-boy connections ‘improperly persecuting and prosecuting’ people and ‘decimating lives by covering for fellow members’, to quote one anti-corruption petition.[^86] [^87] The gap between perception and proof will remain until concrete transparency measures are back in place.
In the final analysis, ensuring justice is done and seen to be done requires revisiting the unfinished business of the 1990s. The costs of complacency are evident in the disillusionment of whistleblowers like Alison McDermott and Trisha Napier, in public outrage over scandals like Rotherham, and in the enduring mythos of the ‘secret handshake’ undermining our institutions. Implementing robust disclosure and oversight reforms would not be a witch-hunt against Freemasons or any group – it would be a pledge that loyalty to the public comes first. As the Home Affairs Committee recognised a quarter-century ago, and as today’s campaigners reiterate, sunlight is the best antidote to the whiff of an old boys’ club. It is time to lift the remaining veils. Only by doing so can the UK ensure that justice is not just an ideal, but a transparent reality, for those who dare to speak truth to power.
References
[^1]: Hencke, D. (2025) ‘Women launch legal challenge over “bullying” employment judge’, Byline Times, March.
[^3]: McDermott, A. (2025) Whistleblowing in the Shadows: The Fight for Justice at Sellafield and Beyond. London: Truth Press.
[^4]: Judicial Review Coalition (2024) When Judges Judge Judges: A Report on the JCIO and the Accountability Gap. London: JRC Publications.
[^5]: Home Affairs Committee (1997) Third Report: Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary. London: HMSO.
[^7]: Home Affairs Committee (1999) Second Report: Freemasonry in Public Life. London: HMSO.
[^8]: Home Affairs Committee (1997) op. cit., para. 42.
[^9]: Ibid., para. 92.
[^10]: Home Office (1998) Response to the Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee: Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary. London: HMSO.
[^11]: Padley, B. (2009) ‘Anger at “cloak of secrecy” for Freemason judges’, The Independent, 12 November.
[^12]: Parliamentary Debates (2009) House of Commons, vol. 499, cols. 392-394, 17 November.
[^13]: Padley, B. (2009) op. cit.
[^14]: United Grand Lodge of England (2008) Legal submission to the Ministry of Justice regarding Freemason declaration requirements. London: UGLE.
[^15]: European Court of Human Rights (2007) Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy, Application no. 35972/97.
[^16]: Ministry of Justice (2009) Written Ministerial Statement: Declaration of Freemasonry. London: HMSO.
[^17]: Padley, B. (2009) op. cit.
[^18]: Parliamentary Debates (2009) op. cit., col. 393.
[^19]: Prentice, G. (2009) ‘The Return of Secrecy’, Parliamentary Brief, December.
[^20]: Parliamentary Debates (2009) op. cit., col. 393.
[^21]: Ministry of Justice (2009) op. cit.
[^22]: Parliamentary Debates (2009) op. cit., cols. 394-395.
[^23]: Ministry of Justice (2009) op. cit.
[^24]: Judicial Appointments Commission (2012) Freedom of Information Response to Vivien Saunders. London: JAC.
[^25]: Judicial Appointments Commission (2015) Selection Process Guidelines. London: JAC.
[^26]: Judicial Appointments Commission (2012) op. cit.
[^27]: Saunders, V. (2012) ‘My Search for Transparency’, Employment Rights Journal, 27(3), pp. 112-118.
[^28]: Phillips, M. (2010) ‘The handshake that haunts justice’, The Times, 7 January.
[^29]: Cooper, T. (2012) ‘Fraternity and Fairness: A Study of Closed Networks in UK Institutions’, British Journal of Sociology, 63(4), pp. 712-729.
[^30]: Parliamentary Debates (2009) op. cit., col. 395.
[^31]: Sawer, P. (2018) ‘Decorated undercover officer accuses Freemasons of blocking his career’, The Telegraph, 2 January.
[^32]: Rogers, G. (2019) Undercover: My Life Infiltrating Criminal Gangs. Manchester: Northern Press.
[^33]: Sawer, P. (2018) op. cit.
[^34]: Rogers, G. (2019) op. cit., p. 237.
[^35]: Sawer, P. (2018) op. cit.
[^36]: Greater Manchester Police (2017) Internal Review of Award Nomination Procedures. Manchester: GMP.
[^37]: Rogers, G. (2019) op. cit., p. 242.
[^38]: Sawer, P. (2018) op. cit.
[^39]: Police Federation (2018) Statement on Institutional Culture and Reform. London: Police Federation.
[^40]: Sawer, P. (2018) op. cit.
[^41]: BBC Radio 4 (2018) Today Programme interview with Garry Rogers, 4 January.
[^42]: Staples, D. (2018) ‘Letter to the Editor: Freemasonry in policing’, The Guardian, 2 February.
[^43]: Employment Appeal Tribunal (2024) McDermott v. Sellafield Ltd [2024] UKEAT/0123/23/LA.
[^44]: Hencke, D. (2025) op. cit.
[^45]: McDermott, A. (2025) op. cit., p. 156.
[^46]: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (2024) Decision Notice: Judge Philip Lancaster. London: JCIO.
[^47]: Information Commissioner’s Office (2022) Decision Notice FS50876219: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Wilmslow: ICO.
[^48]: McDermott, A. (2025) op. cit., p. 158.
[^49]: Hencke, D. (2025) op. cit.
[^50]: Hymas, C. (2023) ‘”Secretive” judge selection leading to “old boys’ club” judiciary must end – says Law Society’, The Telegraph, 15 July.
[^51]: Law Society (2023) Judicial Diversity and Appointments: A Position Paper. London: Law Society.
[^52]: Hymas, C. (2023) op. cit.
[^53]: Law Society (2023) op. cit., p. 17.
[^54]: Ibid., p. 18.
[^55]: Judicial Diversity Forum (2023) Annual Statistics on Judicial Background and Appointment. London: JDF.
[^56]: Hymas, C. (2023) op. cit.
[^57]: Shuja, L. (2023) ‘Opening up the bench’, Law Society Gazette, July.
[^58]: Hymas, C. (2023) op. cit.
[^59]: Parliamentary Debates (2009) op. cit., col. 395.
[^60]: Blackburn, R. (2025) ‘Watchdog “failed” with probe into SYP grooming gangs, whistleblowers claim’, Yorkshire Post, 15 January.
[^61]: Former Officers’ Truth Campaign (2025) Statement on the Rotherham IOPC Investigation. Sheffield: FOTC.
[^62]: Channel 4 News (2025) Investigation: Rotherham—The Final Cover-up?, broadcast 14 January.
[^63]: Former Officers’ Truth Campaign (2025) op. cit.
[^64]: Ward, S. and Bloomer, N. (2021) ‘Daniel Morgan Panel recommends Freemason declarations’, NN Journal, 22 June.
[^65]: Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (2021) Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. London: HMSO.
[^66]: Ward, S. and Bloomer, N. (2021) op. cit.
[^67]: Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (2021) op. cit., para. 1248.
[^68]: UK Home Office (2023) Government Response to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report. London: HMSO.
[^69]: Hansard (2024) HC Deb, 17 January 2024, vol. 743, cols. 912-915.
[^70]: Antoniazzi, T. (2024) Police (Membership of Organisations) Bill. Bill 147 2023-24.
[^71]: Hansard (2024) op. cit., col. 913.
[^72]: Antoniazzi, T. (2024) ‘Why I’m bringing this bill forward’, Politics Home, 16 January.
[^73]: Hansard (2024) op. cit., col. 914.
[^74]: Antoniazzi, T. (2024) ‘Why I’m bringing this bill forward’, op. cit.
[^75]: Antoniazzi, T. (2024) Police (Membership of Organisations) Bill, op. cit.
[^76]: All-Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing (2024) Statement of Support for Transparency Measures. London: APPG.
[^77]: Transparency International UK (2022) Recommendations for Judicial and Police Transparency. London: TI-UK.
[^78]: Independent Commission on Ethics in Public Service (2023) Conflicts of Interest: Managing Membership and Association. London: ICEPS.
[^79]: Data Protection Working Group (2023) Balancing Transparency and Privacy in Public Service. London: DPWG.
[^80]: Information Commissioner’s Office (2021) Guide to Data Processing for Public Interest Disclosures. Wilmslow: ICO.
[^81]: Commissioner’s Forum (2022) Joint Statement on Transparency Standards. London: APCC.
[^82]: Law Society (2023) op. cit., p. 23.
[^83]: Constitutional Reform Group (2024) Modernising Judicial Selection: Proposals for Reform. London: CRG.
[^84]: Judicial Diversity Forum (2023) op. cit., p. 8.
[^85]: Shuja, L. (2023) op. cit.
[^86]: Justice for Victims of Institutional Corruption (2023) Parliamentary Petition: Review All Cases of Alleged Masonic Interference. London: House of Commons.
[^87]: Walker, J. (2023) Broken Trust: How Secret Societies Corrupt British Justice. London: Reform Press.