Martyn’s Law 2025

On the 3rd of April 2025 the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act or Martyn’s Law for short came into force in the UK. Why Martyn’s name? The law was named after Martyn Hett, a victim who was killed during the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017. This new law mandates that any premises or event venues which hosts more than 200 people must undertake a standardised risks assessments and train staff to have a certain standard of security measure in place. This was designed to ensure that venues are better prepared from risks of terrorist threats and bombings so that innocent lives do not get killed in another terrorist attack on British soil.

This enactment was following the Manchester Arena Inquiry, which exposed serious failings in the security management and the poor coordination on the night of the terror attack. Hence, the government was pressured into taking legislative action to prevent another terror attack from taking place in the future. The families of victims and reform activists were the major driving force which led to the government’s response for statutory change. In light of this, Martyn’s Law aligned to complement perfectly with the existing statutory regulations like fire laws. It is not about shifting the burden of counter-terrorism entirely to private sectors but establishes a baseline duty of care expectation that venues should not stick their heads in the sand when the risks of danger arise.

Martyn’s law creates a consistent level of protection to public venues and spaces which ensures a basic level of contingency planning in cases of emergency. For the Manchester Arena Bombing victims, it also symbolises a formal recognition and commitment by Britain at large that preventable mistakes should not have happened and will not happen again.

However, this piece of legislation also raises significant drawbacks, despite the heroic narrative to save innocent lives by countering terrorism.

Medium and smaller sized venues like community centres, clubs, play theatres and many more may find the relevant management costs and logistical burden taking a heavy toll on their financial position. For example, professional risk assessment costs, security upgrades and relevant staff training costs all translate into higher overhead costs and less profit margins for many already struggling small businesses. Ultimately, business owners will have no choice but to transfer that added overhead and operational costs onto the consumers via price increments which harm the consumer’s interest.

This trade-off between safety and price stability could potentially harm the local economy, especially in industries with a high price elasticity of demand as consumers will be pushed away by the higher prices and shift their spending habits towards larger companies and brands that can afford the cut in profit margin. This creates an indefinite cycle of small businesses raising prices and consumers pivoting away from local businesses which would, in the long run, be severely detrimental to the local economy as small businesses are forced out of the market.

There is also a risk that over-regulation like long security queues will discourage cultural and community events. If this trend does escalate, the new legislation might even push community events into unregulated or informal spaces out of the authority’s eyes where public safety is less assured if it even exists at all. This may spiral into more detrimental social issues like substance abuse and more unhealthy activities for the public especially the youth.

A further concern is whether the measures under the new law will genuinely improve security or just merely create a flimsy strawman. Research has found that visible measures like bag checks and security staff presence only reassure the public without materially reducing any risks of threats. A sophisticated and planned attack is not possibly deterred by merely a few securities personnel’s death stare, which raises the question of whether the law is actually effective in protecting the public or just create a false perception of safety.

Critically, Martyn’s Law reflects on the broader tension between freedom and commerce and safety in public life. It is aimed at legislating against risks of terrorism but the planned and organised element that forms terrorism is, by its own nature, unpredictable and difficult to deter. Whether the Act is ultimately successful or not will depend on the government’s future enforcement and the regulatory framework by the authorities.

In conclusion, Martyn’s Law is a significant shift in how the UK understands and approaches the threat of terrorism. It establishes a baseline expectation for any public gathering which embeds security into daily life. But it  also raises the concern of fairness to small businesses and the inherent extent of its effectiveness following implementation. Its legacy will not be determined by a government personnel’s public narrative, but whether it materially enhances public safety without eliminating the vibrancy of the very local community it seeks to protect.