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.
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. 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.
