The introduction of Martyn’s Law, officially known as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill marks a significant shift in how universities approach and understand their security needs and preparedness, with a heightened focus on terrorism and its potential impact on their communities, writes Dale Murphy.
Named in memory of Martyn Hett, one of the victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, the law seeks to ensure that all publicly accessible locations, including higher education institutions, have proportionate plans in place to protect their staff, students, and visitors from potential terrorist threats.
At its core, Martyn’s Law is about understanding and managing responsibility and readiness. For universities, these principles should already be familiar. Higher education institutions have long been committed to effective safeguarding and emergency management. Martyn’s Law does not reinvent this duty of care; rather, it formalises and strengthens what should already be embedded in the culture of campus safety.
Understanding the impact
Universities are unique environments, they are open, diverse communities where thousands of students, staff, and visitors gather daily across large, often complex estates. The implications of Martyn’s Law are therefore wide-ranging, with lecture theatres, student unions, sports halls, libraries, and event spaces all falling within its scope.
Implementation will require universities to review, improve, and refine existing security processes, particularly in relation to event risk assessments, enhanced security awareness training for all staff (not just security teams), and clear, easily accessible response plans for incidents.
Student-led events and visiting speaker programmes may also require more rigorous planning and oversight. However, these measures should not be seen as bureaucratic hurdles but as welcome opportunities to strengthen community confidence and resilience.
Expectations and practicalities
Students quite rightly expect and demand safe, modern, and inclusive learning. At the same time, they value freedom of movement and expression; these fundamental principles must remain the cornerstones of university life and not be overtly impacted by Martyn’s Law.
Achieving and maintaining this balance will be one of the greatest challenges under Martyn’s Law for universities. Overly visible or restrictive security measures could undermine the open, welcoming atmosphere that defines campus culture. Conversely, insufficient preparation or acknowledgement of potential risks could erode trust and damage reputation should an incident occur.
It must also be recognised that there will be financial and technological considerations. Implementing new access controls, surveillance systems, or training programmes inevitably carries a cost. Yet universities already invest heavily in digital learning, wellbeing initiatives, and sustainability, and in most cases, safety, security, and wellbeing should sit comfortably alongside these priorities. In many instances, existing infrastructure such as CCTV networks, staff and student ID systems, and emergency communication platforms can be leveraged to meet new requirements efficiently, with minimal disruption or additional cost.
A continuation, not an over-complication
It is easy to perceive new legislation as another layer of compliance, but Martyn’s Law should be seen differently. The principles it promotes, awareness, preparedness, and proportionate action are neither new nor unreasonable. They simply represent a continuation of what responsible institutions have always sought to do: protect their people.
In practice, Martyn’s Law encourages collaboration rather than complexity. It prompts universities to review existing safety protocols, engage with students and staff to improve security awareness, and work more closely with local authorities and emergency services. The overarching goal is not to overcomplicate systems, but to foster a more informed and cohesive approach to security and risk management across the sector.
Conclusion
Martyn’s Law represents an evolution, not a revolution, in campus safety. For universities, it serves as a timely reminder that security is not about restriction, it is about reassurance. By embedding its principles thoughtfully and proportionately, higher education can demonstrate that safety and openness are not mutually exclusive. Ultimately, Martyn’s Law asks universities to simply continue what we should have been doing all along: Protecting our communities with care, foresight, and responsibility.
About the author
Dale Murphy MSc, CSyP is Head of Security & Resilience at the University of Hertfordshire, based in Hatfield. He’s a Chartered Security Professional.
(Photo by Mark Rowe from the August edition of Professional Security Magazine, Leeds University campus, midsummer.)
Background
For further, general reading visit www.protectuk.police.uk/.
