As event venues adapt to evolving security needs, Martyn’s Law presents an important opportunity for safeguarding public spaces.
As venue owners and event organisers strive to prepare for these new measures, many are seeking further clarity on their specific responsibilities within the complex Zone-Ex area.
A recent LinkedIn Poll that we conducted asked the question:
“When putting on a public event, who should be responsible for assessing the risk of a terrorist attack and implementing security measures?”
- Option A: The Venue/ Landowner?
- Option B: The Event Owner / Organiser?
The results came back with 73% of respondents saying the responsibility should be with the Event Owner/ Organiser, and 27% saying the Venue/ Landowner, this poll has clearly divided opinion – and exposed a disturbing lack of clarity about where the responsibilities for ‘Zone-Ex’ lay.
Zone-Ex and Its considerations
The concept of Zone-Ex, or the ‘grey space’ surrounding an event venue has increasingly become an important focus in discussions of public safety and counter-terrorism. This extended area, often reaching beyond the venue’s perimeter into nearby streets, car parks, and public spaces, presents a security challenge that, while difficult to manage, is essential for ensuring the safety of attendees. The introduction of Martyn’s Law, also known as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, will provide an opportunity to enhance security measures in these areas. As owners and operators consider new guidelines, there is a need for further clarity on how to best secure this complex space and who is responsible for comprehensive and effective mitigation strategies.
Zone-Ex: A Complex and Overlooked Risk
Zone-Ex is, by its very nature, a transitional space. Whether outside a football stadium, concert hall, or major public event, it is the area where people congregate, queue, and move between public transport or car parks and the event itself. Unlike the highly regulated and secure environments inside the venue, this ‘grey space’ often falls outside the jurisdiction of the venue owner, creating a patchwork of security responsibilities.
For terrorists, this area presents a soft target. It is often less monitored, with fewer visible security measures than within the venue, and offers a high concentration of people. In recent years, high-profile terrorist attacks, both at home and abroad, such as the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing – where the terrorist had easy access to the public foyer of the arena – and the Berlin Breitscheidplatz Christmas market attack in December 2016, where a stolen HGV was driven into unprotected shoppers and market stalls in a Publicly Accessible Location.
As Martyn’s Law moves through Parliament, the government will need to address the gap in responsibility and ensure that venues and public authorities can work in unison to secure these vulnerable spaces.
Martyn’s Law, named in memory of Martyn Hett, a victim of the Manchester Arena attack, seeks to address this by imposing a legal duty on venue operators to mitigate the risk of terrorism. While the legislation will be a much-needed step forward in enhancing security, it still leaves significant gaps regarding how the grey space is to be managed, especially when it comes to shared or public areas outside the direct control of venue operators. Clarifying responsibilities in these zones will be essential to fully realising the protective potential of Martyn’s Law.
For example, Section 5, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) draft Bill states that:
(1) For the purposes of this Act— (a) the person responsible for qualifying public premises is the person who has control of the premises in connection with their relevant Schedule 1 use; (b) the person responsible for a qualifying public event is the person who has control of the premises at which the event is to be held in connection with their use for the event.
(2) If more than one person is responsible for qualifying public premises or a qualifying public event— (a) references in this Act to the person responsible for the premises or the event (as the case may be) are to each such person, and (b) two or more such persons may act jointly in pursuance of a requirement imposed on them by or under this Act.
This gives no direct instruction, or allocation of responsibility, to the space between the premises – Zone-Ex / Grey Space – or the Publicly Accessible Locations (PALs) en route to the venue, such as public footpaths, or areas where event-goers would be queuing, or milling around.
In 2022 (before the latest version of the draft Bill was published), the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) published a document entitled ‘Events National Guidance 2022’, authored by DAC Laurence Taylor, NPCC Events Lead, which further muddies the waters by stating:
“Legal opinion suggests that the responsibility for public safety rests with the organisers of an event, the owners of the land on which it takes place and the local authority if the event takes place on a road. However, other persons or agencies who undertake actions regarding public safety at an event may assume a duty of care and, therefore, also become responsible.”
Martyn’s Law and Its Reach: Who is Responsible for Zone-Ex?
The central tenet of Martyn’s Law is to mandate that venues have a strategy in place to assess and manage the risk of a terrorist attack. This includes training staff, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring effective communication during emergencies. However, what is less clear is the extent to which this duty extends beyond the immediate surrounding area of the venue.
For instance, a football stadium may have security protocols in place for entry gates and the stands, but who is responsible for ensuring the safety of fans milling about in the streets outside? In this liminal space between public and private ownership, security responsibility often becomes fragmented. Local authorities, private contractors, and the venue itself may all have a role to play, yet the lines of accountability are blurred.
The Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA), in its article of June 2024 ‘Mitigation of threats during ingress and egress’ , deferred to the NPSA document ‘Mitigation of Terrorist Threats at Venues During Ingress and Egress Guidance document’ by stating:
“In the case of both ingress and egress from a venue, the problem centres around the congregation of people who are vulnerable to attack in areas where there are limited safety and security measures in place.
This is particularly relevant in areas that may be outside the direct control of the venue. Keeping people safe during the ingress and egress phase of a venue’s operation is a security challenge. Add to that the complications of long queues, checking tickets, bag searches, etc, and the need to identify the vulnerabilities and control or manage the risks becomes clear. Being prepared is key to combating any threat. Hostile actors may identify the entry and exit points at a venue as ‘soft targets’ if security is poorly developed.”
In fact, the NPSA refers Event Organisers to several sources, without issuing definitive guidance on Zone-Ex / Grey Space:
“This issue is not covered in this guidance, but further information can be found on the ProtectUK website and within the Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA) Green Guide and Supplementary Guidance ‘Event Safety Management’. Also, the Purple Guide is a comprehensive document outlining safe standards for the running of outdoor events. Lastly, for small to medium size venues, there is a good practice guide called ‘Safer Crowds Safer Venues’ that focuses on crowd management in UK performance and licences spaces.”
This lack of clarity is particularly problematic for venue owners and event organisers, who will be legally required to consider terrorism risks but may not have the authority or resources to secure adjacent public areas. The grey space thus remains a significant blind spot, one that terrorists could continue to exploit unless a more coordinated and clearly defined approach to security is adopted.
The Challenge of Coordinating Security Efforts
One of the key challenges that will be posed by Martyn’s Law (as the draft bill currently stands) is how to coordinate security measures across multiple stakeholders in Zone-Ex. In many cases, this area involves a mix of private property, public streets, and transport hubs, all of which fall under different jurisdictions. While venue owners will be expected to have comprehensive anti-terrorism plans, they cannot unilaterally control these areas without the cooperation of local authorities, transport operators, and law enforcement agencies.
For example, securing the perimeter of a stadium involves not only monitoring entry points, but also managing the flow of people through surrounding public spaces. In practical terms, this could involve a range of measures from increasing the presence of security personnel and CCTV surveillance to deploying Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) barriers that prevent vehicle-borne attacks. However, implementing such measures often requires the approval and coordination of multiple agencies, each with their own priorities and constraints.
Without clear guidance on how to manage this process, venue operators may face challenges in meeting their legal obligations to mitigate risks, while lacking full control over external spaces. Addressing this disconnect between responsibility and authority will be key to ensuring Martyn’s Law achieves its full potential in enhancing public safety.
The Financial and Logistical Considerations for Event Organisers
One important consideration for smaller event organisers is the potential financial and logistical impact of implementing Martyn’s Law. Upgrading security infrastructure, training staff, and conducting regular risk assessments may present challenges, for smaller venues or one-off events. However, it is crucial that the measures for these venues remain proportionate to their size and risk level. By seeking the right advice, smaller venues can better understand their vulnerabilities and implement appropriate training and mitigation strategies that are not cost-prohibitive. While larger stadiums and arenas may have the resources to invest in robust security systems, ensuring that smaller venues can access support and guidance will help them comply with Martyn’s Law in a way that balances security with practicality, without imposing excessive financial burdens.
Moreover, the grey space around venues often requires additional measures, such as hiring more security personnel to patrol adjacent streets, installing additional CCTV, or even installing permanent or temporary HVM barriers. These costs, coupled with the logistical complexity of managing public spaces, highlight the need for a balanced approach that ensures all venues, regardless of size can effectively comply with Martyn’s Law, without facing disproportionate challenges.
A Path Forward: Clarifying the Law and Strengthening Partnerships
For Martyn’s Law to be truly effective, a clearer framework is needed to address the security challenges posed by the grey space around event venues. One potential solution lies in fostering stronger partnerships, and lines of communication between venue operators, local authorities, and law enforcement. By creating a more integrated approach to security, stakeholders can ensure that Zone-Ex is properly monitored and protected, reducing the likelihood of terrorist attacks in these vulnerable areas.
Furthermore, the government must provide more detailed guidance on how Martyn’s Law will apply to areas outside the immediate control of venue operators. This could involve extending the legislation to cover public spaces around venues or creating incentives for local authorities to invest in additional security measures. By clearly delineating responsibilities and providing the necessary resources, the law can help ensure that all parties are equipped to address the risks posed by the grey space.
In addition, there is a need for greater public awareness about the role that Zone-Ex plays in event security. Just as venue operators are now required to take steps to protect against terrorism, the public must also be educated about the risks and how to respond in an emergency. This could include more visible security measures, such as public information campaigns or increased police presence in high-risk areas (such as used for Project Servator exercises), to reassure event-goers and deter potential attackers.
The Ongoing Challenges of Zone-Ex Security
Martyn’s Law will represent a significant step forward in the fight against terrorism, and it also presents an opportunity to enhance security in the grey space surrounding venues. While the current ambiguity regarding Zone-Ex poses challenges for event organisers and venue owners, it also opens the door for collaboration among stakeholders. By working together to establish clearer guidelines, we can implement effective security measures that protect public spaces.
As the threat of terrorism continues to evolve, so too must our approach to securing the spaces where people gather. Zone-Ex, though often overlooked, is a critical component of comprehensive security strategies. By addressing its unique challenges with proactive policies and strengthened partnerships, we can enhance public safety and create safer environments for all attendees.
Main Image: Heald. Matador installation at Wembley Stadium.