Apr 20 • Jo Cox-Brown

Martyn’s Law: What the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 Really Means for the Night Time Economy

There are moments when legislation arrives quietly but changes the terms of how a sector understands itself. Not overnight, and not always evenly, but in a way that makes certain assumptions harder to justify and certain gaps harder to ignore. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, more widely known as Martyn's Law, feels like one of those moments. 

For those of us who have spent years working across nightlife, events, culture and public space, the themes within it are not new. Safety, risk, responsibility, partnership. These have always been part of the fabric of the night, whether formally recognised or not. What this legislation does is bring them into sharper focus and make them explicit. It places a clear duty on those who create and operate public spaces to think differently about preparedness, not as an optional layer, but as a core part of how those spaces function. 

And in doing so, it subtly reframes the conversation. The question is no longer whether a venue is broadly well run or experienced. It is whether it is genuinely prepared. 

The context we cannot separate from the law:

Martyn’s Law cannot be understood without recognising where it comes from. It sits in the shadow of the Manchester Arena bombing and the sustained, deeply personal campaigning of Figen Murray. 

At its heart is a difficult but necessary acknowledgement. Many public venues and spaces were not prepared for an incident of that nature. Not because people did not care, but because preparedness had not been consistently designed into how those environments operated. It was assumed, fragmented, or simply not prioritised in the way it needed to be. 

Preparedness, in reality, is never accidental. It is built, tested and maintained over time. Martyn’s Law is an attempt to ensure that this becomes a consistent expectation rather than an inconsistent outcome. 

What the Act actually does: 

At a practical level, the Act introduces a legal duty for those responsible for certain premises and events to consider the risk of a terrorist attack and take proportionate steps to reduce that risk. It does this through a tiered framework based on capacity, with smaller venues focusing on awareness and basic preparedness, and larger venues and events required to undertake more detailed risk assessments and planning. 

On the surface, this is structured and logical. It provides a way of scaling expectations in line with perceived risk. 

But the reality of the night time economy rarely fits neatly into these categories. 

A venue’s capacity does not fully define its risk. A small bar can generate a significant external footprint through queues, street activity and dispersal patterns. A cluster of venues can behave as a single environment, even if each is regulated individually. The movement of people between spaces, particularly late at night, creates a fluidity that is difficult to capture within static definitions. 

This is where the application of Martyn’s Law becomes more complex. It asks operators to think beyond their immediate footprint and to understand how their space behaves as part of a wider ecosystem. 

The risk of reducing this to compliance:

 There is a familiar pattern that often follows the introduction of new legislation. Initial attention, followed by interpretation, and then, in some cases, reduction into a series of actions that can be ticked off and filed away. 

There is a real risk that Martyn’s Law could follow that path. 

Policies may be written. Training may be delivered. Risk assessments may be updated. And on paper, everything may appear to be in place. 

But the reality of risk, particularly in night time environments, does not sit neatly within documentation. It sits in behaviour, in awareness, in the ability of staff to recognise when something is not quite right and to respond appropriately. It sits in communication, in decision making, in the subtle interplay between teams under pressure. 

A venue can meet every formal requirement and still be exposed if those elements are not embedded into how it operates on a night-to-night basis. 

Martyn’s Law does not, in itself, resolve that gap. What it does is remove the space in which that gap could previously be overlooked. 

Where this intersects with the realities of nightlife:

The night time economy operates within a set of conditions that are often underestimated by those outside it. Margins can be tight, staffing can be inconsistent, and the pace of activity can shift rapidly over the course of an evening. The environment itself is dynamic, shaped by different audiences, different events and different external factors. 

Within that context, the expectations introduced by Martyn’s Law are both necessary and challenging. 

Larger operators will often have the structures in place to absorb these requirements. They have dedicated teams, established processes and the capacity to integrate new obligations into existing systems. 

For independent venues, the picture can look very different. These spaces often carry significant cultural value, but operate with limited resource. The challenge here is not willingness, but capacity. Time, funding and access to appropriate support all become critical factors. 

If this is not carefully managed, there is a risk of creating uneven implementation, where some parts of the sector move quickly and others struggle to keep pace. That imbalance does not serve the overall aim of improving safety across the night time economy.  

Designing for real preparedness

For Martyn’s Law to have meaningful impact, it needs to be understood not simply as a compliance requirement, but as a design challenge. 

Preparedness has to be built into the way a space operates, rather than layered on top of it. 

This begins with training, but not in its most basic form. Staff need to understand the environments they are working in, the types of behaviours they may encounter, and how to respond in ways that are both proportionate and effective. This kind of understanding is developed over time, through scenarios, through discussion and through experience. 

Risk assessment also needs to evolve. It cannot remain a static document. It has to reflect how a space changes across different nights, different seasons and different types of events. A venue on a quiet midweek evening presents a different set of considerations to the same venue on a busy weekend night. 

Partnership is another critical element. No venue operates in isolation, particularly at night. The relationships between venues, local authorities, police, transport providers and neighbouring businesses all shape how an area functions. Preparedness, in that sense, becomes a shared responsibility. 

And then there is the public realm. The areas immediately outside venues, and the routes people take as they move through a city at night, often present the greatest points of vulnerability. These spaces do not always sit clearly within a single line of responsibility, but they are central to how risk is experienced in practice. 

 

The opportunity within the obligation:

While Martyn’s Law introduces new responsibilities, it also creates a moment of alignment. 

It establishes a baseline expectation across the sector and provides an opportunity to rethink what good looks like. For those already investing in safety and preparedness, it offers a framework through which that work can be strengthened and extended. 

There is also a broader impact to consider. Safety is not only about reducing risk. It is about shaping how people feel within a space. Perception of safety influences behaviour, participation and confidence. It determines who chooses to engage with the night time economy and how they experience it. 

In that sense, the implications of Martyn’s Law extend beyond counter-terrorism. They touch on the overall quality and accessibility of night time environments. 

What operators need to do next, and where to get the right support:

If Martyn’s Law is reduced to a question of “what do I need to have in place?”, we risk missing the deeper shift it is asking of the sector. The more useful question is how operators move from a position of reacting to issues as they arise, to one of genuine preparedness. 

For most venues, this does not begin with creating entirely new systems. It begins with understanding what is already in place and how effectively it functions. Risk assessments, security plans, incident logs and staff briefings often already exist, but they are not always connected or consistently applied. 

Bringing these elements together and testing them against real scenarios is an important first step. Not in theory, but in practice. Considering how a venue operates at different times, with different audiences and under different pressures begins to reveal where the gaps sit. 

Training then becomes central, but it needs to go beyond basic compliance. Staff need to be confident in recognising behaviours, making decisions and communicating under pressure. This kind of capability is built through ongoing engagement rather than one-off sessions. 

Understanding the wider environment is also essential. Risk does not stop at the venue door. Queues, surrounding streets, transport hubs and nearby businesses all form part of the operational landscape. Mapping this and understanding where responsibilities sit helps to create a more complete picture of risk. 

Relationships play a significant role in this process. Engaging with local authorities, police, counter-terrorism advisors and neighbouring venues creates a network of support that becomes critical in both planning and response. 

In terms of formal support, organisations such as the National Counter Terrorism Security Office provide guidance, training and practical resources that can help operators build their understanding. Local counter-terrorism policing teams can also offer site-specific advice and support, which is often underutilised. 

Industry partnerships, Business Improvement Districts and licensing forums can support the sharing of knowledge and coordination across areas, helping to ensure that approaches are not developed in isolation. 

Specialist organisations with experience of the night time economy can also play a role in translating legislative requirements into operational practice, ensuring that what is developed is both realistic and effective within the context of the sector. 
Write your awesome label here.

Final thoughts

Nightlife has always carried a kind of unspoken agreement. People arrive for freedom, for connection, for that sense of something unfolding that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the day. But underneath that, whether we say it out loud or not, there is an expectation that someone has thought about the edges of that experience. That someone has considered what happens when things don’t go to plan, when the energy shifts, when risk moves from theoretical to real. 

What Martyn's Law does is bring that expectation into the open. It stops safety from being something implied and makes it something owned. Not just by the largest operators or the most resourced venues, but by all of us who choose to bring people together at night. 

And that is where this becomes more than legislation. Because this is not really about documents, or thresholds, or whether a policy exists somewhere in a folder. It is about whether the environments we design are genuinely capable of holding people, not just at their best, but at their most vulnerable, and in moments none of us ever want to face but all of us have a responsibility to prepare for. 

The night time economy has always evolved. From theatres to music halls, from clubs to festivals, from informal gathering spaces to highly programmed experiences, it has constantly shifted in response to culture, demand and pressure. This is simply the next evolution, but one that asks for a different kind of maturity from the sector. One that requires us to think beyond the offer, beyond the experience, and into the responsibility that sits alongside it. 

Because ultimately, the success of the night is not measured only in footfall, spend or cultural output. It is measured in trust. In whether people feel they can step into these spaces and be held, even if they never consciously think about it. And in whether, when tested, those spaces are able to respond in a way that justifies that trust. 

That is the shift that sits beneath Martyn’s Law. Not louder, not more visible, but far more fundamental.