If you operate a venue, manage a public-facing site or run events, the question is no longer simply what is Martyn’s Law, but what it will require from your team in practice. The proposed law is designed to improve public protection from terrorist attacks by placing clearer security duties on those responsible for certain premises and events. For operators, that means moving from broad good intentions to documented, proportionate protective measures.

Martyn’s Law has been shaped by the lessons of the Manchester Arena attack in 2017. It is named in memory of Martyn Hett, one of the victims. The central idea is straightforward – if a premises or event is open to the public, and the risk profile meets the legal threshold, those responsible should take reasonable steps to reduce harm and improve preparedness.

This matters because many organisations already carry out health and safety, fire and safeguarding planning, but counter-terror preparedness has often been inconsistent. Some venues have mature plans, trained staff and clear command structures. Others rely on informal processes, basic stewarding or assumptions that terrorism is a remote threat. Martyn’s Law is intended to narrow that gap.

What is Martyn’s Law in practical terms?

In practical terms, Martyn’s Law is a proposed UK legal framework that would require qualifying premises and events to consider the threat of terrorism and put proportionate protective arrangements in place. It is not about turning every building into a fortified site. It is about making sure responsible persons have assessed their exposure, trained relevant staff and prepared sensible responses.

That proportionate point matters. A large arena, major event site or busy entertainment venue will not be treated in the same way as a smaller public premises with a lower capacity and simpler operating model. The law is expected to apply in tiers, with different requirements depending on factors such as attendance numbers, type of location and public access.

For business decision-makers, the operational question is simple: if an incident happened on or near your site, could your team recognise the threat, communicate quickly, direct people properly and support an effective response? If the answer is uncertain, there is work to do whether the legal deadline has arrived or not.

Why the law is being introduced

The existing position has left too much to chance. Many duty holders take security seriously, but standards vary widely between sectors and sites. A professionally managed venue may run detailed briefings, search policies, radio protocols, incident escalation routes and evacuation rehearsals. Another site with a similar public footprint may have none of those controls embedded.

Martyn’s Law is intended to create a more consistent baseline. It reinforces the principle that protecting the public is not only a policing issue. Venue operators, landlords, event organisers and site managers also have a role in reducing vulnerability and improving response capability.

There is a wider business case as well. Better preparedness supports continuity, protects reputation and gives staff greater confidence in high-pressure situations. A site team that understands lockdown procedures, suspicious behaviour indicators and emergency communications is in a stronger position to manage a fast-moving incident.

Who may be affected by Martyn’s Law?

The exact scope depends on the final form of the legislation, but the likely focus is on publicly accessible premises and events where people gather. That can include entertainment venues, hospitality settings, sports grounds, visitor attractions, shopping environments and temporary event spaces.

For some organisations, the exposure will be obvious. Arenas, concert venues, night-time economy sites and major events already operate in crowded, dynamic settings where security planning is an operational necessity. For others, the fit may be less obvious. A hotel with conference facilities, a mixed-use commercial site hosting public footfall, or a local authority venue used for seasonal events may still fall within scope depending on occupancy and use.

This is where broad assumptions become risky. Operators should avoid deciding that the law is only relevant to major city-centre venues or nationally significant events. Thresholds, layout, access points and visitor patterns all matter.

What businesses may need to do

Although the final legal detail matters, the direction of travel is already clear. Duty holders are likely to need a more structured approach to counter-terror preparedness than many currently maintain.

That starts with risk assessment. Not a generic template filed away for compliance purposes, but a site-specific review of how an attack might affect the premises or event. Crowd density, queuing areas, ingress routes, external perimeters, hostile vehicle exposure, bag policy, public access points and shelter options all need consideration.

Training is another core requirement. Staff do not need to become counter-terror specialists, but they do need role-appropriate awareness. Front-of-house personnel, stewards, security officers, supervisors and managers should understand what to look for, how to raise concerns and what actions to take during an incident.

Communication plans are equally important. In a real incident, confusion spreads quickly. Teams need clear reporting lines, agreed terminology and practical methods for passing urgent instructions to staff, contractors and the public. That might involve radios, tannoy systems, messaging protocols, code words or predetermined control points. What matters is that it works under pressure.

For larger or more complex sites, physical measures may also form part of the response. That does not always mean expensive infrastructure. Sometimes it is about access control, queue management, hostile vehicle mitigation, screening arrangements or better use of existing barriers and layouts. The right measure depends on the site and threat profile.

What Martyn’s Law does not mean

There is a tendency for legal changes in security to trigger either alarm or complacency. Neither is helpful.

Martyn’s Law does not mean every premises needs airport-style screening, nor does it mean that a short online briefing on its own will be enough. The law is expected to focus on proportionate and reasonable steps, which means duty holders must be able to show that they have thought properly about risk and acted accordingly.

It also does not remove the need for competent people on the ground. Policies only matter if they can be delivered. A written emergency plan is useful, but if supervisors have not briefed teams, if radios are poorly disciplined, or if stewards are unclear on access control and emergency actions, the plan will not hold up when tested.

How to prepare before the law fully takes effect

Waiting for final enforcement detail is rarely the strongest operational approach. The better route is to start aligning your site or event now with the standards the legislation is likely to expect.

Begin with a realistic review of your current position. Look at whether your risk assessment specifically addresses terrorism, whether your staff training is current, whether your emergency procedures are understood, and whether your command structure is clear during a live incident. If responsibility is spread across in-house teams, contractors and event partners, test whether those lines actually join up.

After that, focus on the gaps that affect response quality. In many environments, the first improvements are not dramatic. They include stronger briefings, clearer escalation routes, better control of public entry points and rehearsed actions for evacuation, invacuation or lockdown. These measures are often more valuable than a stack of policies that nobody uses.

For venues and events using outsourced security, procurement decisions also matter. Buyers should expect more than staffing numbers. They should expect structured deployment planning, site-specific briefing content, supervisor accountability and a clear understanding of how officers and stewards fit into the wider emergency response model. A contractor that simply fills posts is unlikely to give adequate support under a law centred on preparedness.

The trade-off between proportionality and complacency

One of the harder parts of Martyn’s Law is getting proportionality right. Some operators will worry about cost, disruption and practical burden, especially where margins are tight or sites are used flexibly. That concern is valid. Not every organisation has the same resources, and legal duties need to be workable.

But proportionality is not a reason to do the minimum by default. A modest venue can still face serious consequences if public protection is weak. Equally, overengineering a low-risk site can create unnecessary friction for visitors and staff. The right standard sits between those extremes – credible, documented and appropriate to the environment.

That balance is easier to achieve when planning is led by people who understand live operations, not only paperwork. Security measures need to fit how the site functions on its busiest day, not how it appears on a quiet Tuesday morning.

Why this should matter to senior decision-makers

Martyn’s Law is often discussed as a venue or event issue, but it is also a governance issue. Senior leaders are responsible for ensuring that duty-of-care arrangements are real, not assumed. If an incident exposes weak planning, poor training or unclear accountability, the operational fallout will quickly become a leadership problem.

That is why this law should be treated as more than a compliance exercise. It is a prompt to tighten standards, clarify responsibilities and build a more disciplined approach to public protection. For operators managing busy premises and live environments, that is not an added extra. It is part of running a competent, defensible operation.

The most useful question to ask now is not whether Martyn’s Law will affect your site, but whether your current arrangements would stand up to serious scrutiny after a critical incident. If that answer is not yet firm, this is the right time to act.