Loading More Content
29-year-old Martyn Hett passed away in the 2017 terrorist attack on Manchester Arena following the performance of Ariana Grande. Islamic extremist Salman Abedi (being motivated by the Western intervention in the Syrian Civil War, and having been encouraged to take up an armed response by his imam just a couple of weeks before the attack) detonated explosives in the arena’s foyer, conducting the deadliest act of terrorism since the 2005 London bombings.
An enquiry back in 2021 stated that ‘more should have been done’ by police, and MI5 similarly found faults in the process of public authorities. The reports specifically went on to say that ‘there were a number of missed opportunities to alter the course of what happened that night’, and that ‘more should have been done’. Prime Minister Theresa May also went on to establish the Commission for Countering Extremism as a direct response to the incident.
A number of potential issues were noted. First, the constables who were designated to be on patrol in the area at the time were not present. Second, there were suggestions that members of the public pointed Abedi out to members of staff around half an hour before the bombing, but no action was taken. When the bomb was eventually detonated, 23 people (including the perpetrator) were killed – one of whom was Martyn Hett, whose family stated that he was only identifiable via a tattoo on his leg.
What is Martyn’s Law?
In response to the government and public service involvement (which many felt was severely lacking, as indicated even by official inquests and enquiries), Hett’s family started to campaign for a change in the law. This has laid the foundations for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (alternatively known as Martyn’s Law).
Hett’s mother completed a high-profile walk to Downing Street to discuss these legal reforms with the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, but he called a general election later in the day. Thus political commentators began to lose confidence in whether the bill would be passed through as a priority – Labour have now clearly indicated that they are supporting it all the way.
The key basis of the new legislation is to improve the security of ‘public venues’ in order to deter, and improve the quality and speed of response against, terrorist attacks. The base of these new expectations is known as the ‘Protect Duty’, and describes the obligations of public venues when it comes to preparing for terrorist incidents.
Martyn’s Law is particularly targeting ‘public venues’ – defined widely in the legislation as ‘publicly accessible’ locations with a minimum 100-person capacity (think everything from stadiums down to supermarkets). The new duty also becomes engaged in the context of certain open-air events like firework displays or festivals.
If the venue in question has a maximum capacity of between 100 and 800 people, they fall under ‘standard tier’ requirements, while venues with over 800-person capacities must comply with more stringent ‘enhanced tier’ requirements.
All venues, regardless of which of the two tiers they fall under, must register with the regulator as a starting point. Obligations then begin to differ based on the two capacity levels.
‘Standard tier’ venues need to proactively seek out counterterrorism training for their staff in order to raise awareness and ensure an effective response if the event does occur. ‘Enhanced tier’ venues need to go further, completing full risk assessments tailored to their specific venue and the types of threat likely to occur (separately, they must appoint a nominated ‘senior officer’ to manage this process within the venue).
Of course, venues in the UK already have baseline obligations in regard to issues like health and safety. The difference here is the fact that the training and preparation taking place now target terrorism specifically (especially at the enhanced level).
Venues failing to comply with the new rules are likely to encounter serious repercussions. The regulator in charge (newly appointed) issues statutory notices to venues which they believe have failed to meet the expectations, after which point they have a set amount of time to demonstrate that they have fixed any issues.
Continued avoidance of these obligations can lead to a variety of sanctions, including limitations on ways the premises can be used, closure of the venue, monetary fines, and even criminal sanctions for those directly involved. While the Bill is only at its draft stage currently (and so has few specific details), enhanced tier venues could face penalties of up to £18 million or 5% of the venue management’s worldwide revenue. Penalties for standard tier venues are significantly lower, albeit still significant considering how small some of those businesses may be, with a maximum £10,000 fine.
In reality, the regulator is far more likely to (and far better equipped to) focus on ensuring compliance amongst enhanced tier venues first. Tens of thousands of locations will come under the standard tier band, and policing all of them is likely to be logistically impossible.
Aspiring lawyers have a lot to unpack here. From one perspective, law students can consider the interaction between individuals and the lawmaking process. Public lawyers are particularly skilled at understanding the lawmaking process, with many top law firms maintaining connections to Westminster via full-time non-lawyer staff members who keep their finger on the pulse of the latest developments. Predicting how long the Bill will take to pass, for example, and advising clients on when they need to start preparing as a result, is one such example task.
Large venues (run by large corporations) will likely turn to law firms for advice (especially if their in-house legal teams are not particularly well-equipped, though they may do most of the work in practice) about how to stay compliant. Many of these clients will likely have already dealt with the law firm’s teams from a more traditional ‘corporate’ perspective (thus this provides a great opportunity for lawyers to cross-sell the capabilities of their firm).
Today, lawyers also need to be able to zoom out from the more traditional ‘legal’ issues and also consider more broad challenges facing their clients, like public image. In a context with as powerful a public sentiment behind it as this one, it is crucial that everyone is seen to work together to remain compliant at all times (especially when they do have large resources at their disposal).
Loading More Content