Martyn’s Law: A Long-Overdue Counter-Terrorism Policy
Siena Keijsers
After seven years of relentless campaigning, Martyn’s Law has finally been introduced to Parliament. The policy is a tribute to Martyn Hett, a victim of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Figen Murray, Martyn’s mother, pioneered the bill to increase preparedness for, and protection from, terrorist attacks in public venues across the United Kingdom (UK) (Home Office, 2024). Critics complain Martyn’s Law will waste precious business resources. Yet, I argue the prospective social benefits outweigh associated economic costs, especially as the policy is designed with financial proportionality in mind. Critics also believe Martyn’s Law will fail to tackle underlying causes of terrorism. I highlight that the bill does not advertise itself as a catch-all solution to terrorism. Nevertheless, it is one essential component of an effective and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. I believe its implementation is long-overdue, especially given UK public venues’ extensive history as a target of terrorism. Consequently, Martyn’s Law bridges an immense gap in British counter-terrorism policy.
So, what is Martyn’s Law? Martyn’s Law requires those responsible for public events to apply appropriate safety measures contingent on a tiered system (Home Office, 2024). This system considers venue size, number of attendees, and nature of activities. Venues with a capacity of 200 to 800 people, classified as standard tier, would be required to implement basic safety measures, namely evacuation plans and clear communication strategies. Encouraging practical procedures, instead of investing in expensive security upgrades, minimises the financial burden of Martyn’s Law on smaller venues. Enhanced tier venues, with capacities exceeding 800 people, would be required to implement more rigorous measures, such as maintaining detailed compliance records and enforcing stricter security protocols. Following Royal Assent, guidance will be issued to assist businesses in fulfilling novel responsibilities. The Security Industry Authority will manage the enforcement of regulations, ensuring venues adhere to new safety obligations.
This initiative was pioneered by Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett. After the tragic loss of her son, Figen dedicated herself to researching security policies for public venues. Figen learnt about a variety of laws linked to public venues, such as toilet quotas needing to correspond to venue capacity (Murray, 2020). To her dismay, Figen did not find a single policy requiring public venues to prepare for terrorist attacks, despite the UK suffering from 5563 terrorist incidents between 1970 and 2020, many of which occurred at public venues (Global Terrorism Database, 2020). Accordingly, Figen launched a campaign to bridge this gap, in memory of Martyn.
Despite Martyn’s Law’s positive intentions, The Spectator (2024) complains the policy will impose expensive and onerous regulations on public venues, misguiding their resources. I contend that the bill’s potential to reduce the likelihood and lethality of terror attacks outweighs associated economic costs, especially as expenses will be negligible for standard tier venues. In the event of an attack public venues will also financially recover faster if they operate a contingency plan because it could deter the attack, minimise harm and/or provide them with a defence in the court of public opinion. Additionally, The Spectator (2024) protests that Martyn’s Law will disproportionately focus on venue-specific security, instead of addressing broader factors which contribute to terror attacks. In doing so The Spectator fails to recognise that Martyn’s Law does not advertise itself as a catch-all solution to terrorism. Instead, it functions as one cog in the complex machinery of counter-terrorism strategies.
Ultimately, Martyn’s Law strives to reduce the likelihood and lethality of terror attacks in British public venues. Its implementation is long overdue, especially given UK public venues’ extensive history as a target of terrorism. Its passage, driven by personal tragedy and persistent advocacy, represents a fundamental shift in how Britain prioritises public safety. Martyn’s Law fills a titanic void in UK counter-terrorism policy.