Andrew 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 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.
For security professionals, the implication is straightforward: professional judgement will increasingly be assessed against published benchmarks rather than informal custom and practice. Security practitioners occupy a critical space between legal duty and operational reality.
Martyn’s Law does not require the elimination of risk, something the law has never demanded, but it does require evidence of reasonable, informed, and proportionate decision-making. This is where professional competence in security matters. Understanding threat, translating guidance into practical measures, and advising duty holders on what is reasonably practicable in their specific environment will be core skills. Importantly, Martyn’s Law should not be viewed as a counter-terrorism project alone. It is about preparedness, resilience, and consequence management. Much of the value lies in improving how people spot concerns, communicate, respond under stress, and recover from incidents, terrorism or otherwise.
While the full statutory guidance from the Security Industry Authority (SIA) is still to come, security professionals do not need to wait to start preparing. Three actions stand out.
- Normalise counter terrorism within existing risk management
Terrorism risk should be integrated into existing safety, security, and enterprise risk-management processes, not treated as a standalone or specialist add-on. Review current risk assessments and ask a simple question: if this were a fire or facilities risk, would our analysis be considered adequate? If not, it is unlikely to stand up under Martyn’s Law.
- Focus on people, not just equipment
The legislation places significant emphasis on staff awareness, training, and preparedness. Security professionals should prioritise behaviours: recognising suspicious activities, effective incident management and escalation, clear communication, and confident response. These are simple but impactive measures that align strongly with both current duty of care law and future compliance expectations.
- Strengthen governance and assurance
Boards and senior leaders will ultimately be accountable. Security professionals should help organisations evidence decision-making: why certain measures were adopted, why others were not, and how proportionality was assessed. Clear documentation, assurance processes, and regular review cycles will be as important as physical or procedural controls.
Martyn’s Law represents an important legislative milestone, but it should not be viewed as an abrupt departure from existing legal principles. Rather, it formalises what duty of care has been quietly demanding for years: that foreseeable terrorism risk is recognised, assessed, and managed in a proportionate way.
For security professionals, this is less about learning an entirely new discipline and more about applying existing professional judgement with greater structure, confidence, and accountability.
Those who start preparing now, by embedding terrorism risk management into everyday safety thinking, are likely to find compliance far less daunting when the law is in force.
Andrew Donaldson MSc BSc (Hons) CSyP FSyI
Security Institute, Director of Counter Terrorism
