The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 (the “Act”) recently came into force. The Act came about due to the tragic Manchester Arena bombings in 2017, and you may also see the Act referred to as “Martyn’s Law”, named after one of the victims of the shocking event.
The motivation behind the Act is to enhance public safety by requiring venues which are hosting large events to implement specific security measures and train their staff to respond to potential terrorist threats. It is relevant to anyone who owns property large enough to host events, or even if you are only considering hosting an event. If this affects you, you need to be aware of the implications of the Act.
The Act is an example of legislation which was pushed through Parliament to respond to a specific event and so it remains to be seen whether it will work in practice, or if necessary changes will become apparent.
For now, the Act defines “qualifying premises” and “events” and sets out who is responsible for them. There are two tiers: a premises is considered “qualifying” if 200 or more individuals, and that includes staff, may be present at the same time in connection with one or more of the uses which are defined in the Act. The second tier is if there are 800 or more individuals, again including staff, and any premises falling within the second tier will have what is called an “enhanced duty”. Anything between 200 and 800 is the “standard duty”.
Whether standard or enhanced, the duty is essentially that property owners and event organisers have to enhance public security, which includes conducting terrorism risk assessments, implementing proportionate security measures and ensuring staff are trained to respond to threats. There are penalties for not complying.
The Act has introduced a new layer of compliance for landlords, tenants and managing agents. A key question is: who is actually responsible for implementing the measures? The majority of leases at the moment do not mention who is responsible for which duty in relation to anti-terrorism. Going forward, we might start to see template leases which include wording about this, especially if a landlord wants to recover the cost of complying with the law via service charge if the property involves multiple tenants with a communal area. Alternatively, there might be a clause where one party has to cover the costs of the other for complying with the Act, or wording to make it clear who has responsibility or if the parties are going to co-operate.
There is also an insurance risk: insurers are likely to start asking if venues are fulfilling their legal duties under Martyn’s Law. It also means new policies and other documents to demonstrate compliance will need to be prepared, to show to insurers, the Courts and regulators. The upshot is potentially quite a significant additional burden to place on landowners and potentially occupiers. Some property owners may have to re-assess the value of their property, factoring in the costs of fitting out a property to meet the requirements.
The Act also affects new designs and development, with security now an even more important part of a venue’s layout and operation. Local planning authorities may put more of a focus on security early on in the planning stage. The Act does not directly change planning law, but it will likely have an effect on what local authorities are looking for.
Enforcement of the Act is under the remit of the Security Industry Authority. Due to the high-profile nature of the events which have led to the Act, it is likely to be taken very seriously. If you own a property used as an event venue, or even one that could be, be mindful of the Act, your obligations and how they could affect you.
Get in Touch
If you are a landowner, tenant, managing agent or anyone else who has a query in relation to Martyn’s Law, we can help you to understand the situation and provide advice tailored to your needs to manage the impact. Please contact Brian Hession, Phil Hutsby-Hunt or Megan Evans at mfg Solicitors.
Comments