a new cloak for A
Martyn’s Law:
ndrew Donaldson explores how Martyn’s Law doesn’t create a new duty of care so much as make an existing one impossible to ignore. He explains how familiar ideas like foreseeability and proportionality are being turned into clear, enforceable obligations for premises and events, and what that really means for security professionals.
Martyn’s Law does not invent a duty of care. It exposes it.
Widely known as Martyn’s Law, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 is the most significant shift in UK protective security regulation for a generation. When legal compliance is required, supported by the pending statutory guidance, it will impose explicit terrorism-preparedness duties on those responsible for premises and events in scope.
Yet for many security professionals, a striking feature of Martyn’s Law is not how profound it is, but how familiar it feels. In practice, much of what the legislation mandates already exists in principle under long-established UK law, particularly the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, through the concept of having a ‘duty of care’ and the management of ‘foreseeable risks’.
This is not suggesting that Martyn’s Law merely restates existing law; rather, it converts long-recognised principles of foreseeability and proportionality into clear, enforceable statutory duties. At the
heart of Martyn’s Law is a clear proposition: terrorism is a foreseeable risk in the UK and should be managed in a proportionate, structured way, just like other hazards such as fire and crowd safety.
Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, (and the 1984 Act in respect of non- visitors), occupiers already owe a duty to take reasonable care to ensure people are safe when using their premises.
The duty is risk-based, not hazard-specific. Similarly, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers and those in control of premises to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of employees and others affected by their undertaking. Martyn’s Law does not invent a new duty; it rather removes any remaining ambiguity over existing legislation.
So, if the duty already exists in principle, why does Martyn’s Law matter? The answer lies in clarity, consistency, and enforceability.
Firstly, the legislation is explicit in its terrorism-related preparedness. It is no
7 © CITY SECURITY MAGAZINE – SPRING 2026
www.citysecuritymagazine.com
longer about vague assurances that general safety arrangements are sufficient to counter terrorism. Requirements around risk assessment, preparedness, and proportionate mitigations will be clearly articulated and standardised across sectors.
Secondly, Martyn’s Law introduces a tiered, proportionate framework with the standard and enhanced tier approach. The requirement for risks to be understood, staff to be trained, response to incidents to be planned for, and in some cases more structured obligations, means that inconsistency in how terrorism risk has historically been addressed is removed.
Thirdly, enforcement will be clearer. Under previous legislation, enforcement action related to terrorism risk has been rare. Martyn’s Law creates a dedicated compliance regime, with a regulator, guidance, and defined expectations. Managing terrorism risk is now a demonstrable governance issue for many companies which hopefully can be achieved without the ‘red tape challenge’ seen by many in compliance with the Building Safety Act 2022.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
