Martyn's Law and the government's proposed bans on convicted criminals: what it means for venues, offenders- and the public

By Catch a Thief UK — an explainer for venue operators, security professionals and the general public.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act

On 3 April 2025 the UK Parliament gave Royal Assent to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 — widely known as Martyn’s Law — a statute designed to raise minimum protective standards at publicly accessible premises and events. Shortly afterwards the Government published fresh proposals to give courts wider powers to ban convicted offenders from attending pubs, clubs, concerts and sporting events as part of tougher community penalties. Though separate reforms with different aims, the two agendas will sit side-by-side in the same public-safety landscape and are likely to intersect in practical ways. This article explains what each measure requires, where they differ, and what venue operators and members of the public should know.

What Martyn’s Law does — in plain terms

Martyn’s Law places a statutory duty on operators of certain publicly accessible premises and events to take “reasonably practicable” steps to reduce the risk of physical harm if a terrorist attack occurs nearby or on site. The regime is tiered: smaller venues are subject to a basic (standard) duty while larger venues or higher-risk events fall into an enhanced tier that requires more detailed risk assessments, written plans and, in some cases, stronger protective measures. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has been assigned a regulatory role to receive notifications from responsible persons and to provide compliance oversight. The Government emphasises the approach is proportionate and contains an implementation timetable so organisations can comply.

Practical expectations under Martyn’s Law include: identifying who is responsible for the premises, conducting a risk assessment, training staff in basic protective behaviours and emergency response, and having proportionate incident plans to reduce harm. For many smaller hospitality businesses this will mean formalising procedures they already practice informally; for large arenas and major events it will require documented security planning and liaison with police.

The Government’s proposed bans on convicted criminals — the headline idea

Separately, ministers have set out plans to expand the remit of sentencing so judges can attach prohibitions to community orders and licences that disallow individuals from attending pubs, concerts, football matches and similar gatherings. These measures form part of a wider response to prison overcrowding: the intention is to widen the toolbox of non-custodial punishments while maintaining visible consequences for offending. Proposals also include expanded mandatory drug-testing and other restrictions such as travel or driving bans. Breach of such bans would risk recall to court or custody.

At present there are existing targeted bans — for example, Football Banning Orders for those guilty of football-related offences — but the new proposals seek to make comparable restrictions available more generally, across a wider range of offending and venues.

How the two regimes might interact in practice

Although Martyn’s Law targets venue duty-holders and the bans target individual offenders, the measures can converge operationally:

Enforcement and checks: If courts prohibit a named person from attending a stadium or concert, practical enforcement may rely on ticketing checks, ID verification or information-sharing with event operators. Venues that implement access control as part of Martyn’s Law preparations will be better placed to help enforce individual bans — but Martyn’s Law itself does not create or require gatekeepers to police criminal sentencing orders.

Digital ID and facial recognition: To enforce criminal bans reliably, some form of digital identity verification or facial recognition could become a practical requirement. Digital ID systems could allow venues to scan patrons at entry, automatically flagging those subject to court-imposed bans. Facial recognition cameras could provide an additional layer of monitoring. While neither Martyn’s Law nor the sentencing proposals currently mandate such technology, it is widely understood that large-scale compliance could be difficult without it.

Administrative burden: Venue operators may be asked to cooperate with probation services and police, for example by excluding banned individuals or by reporting breaches. This raises questions about staff training, data-sharing and privacy management. Martyn’s Law already expects staff to be trained in emergency procedures; adding responsibilities to screen for banned individuals could increase resource needs.

Liability and proportionality: Venues have to meet the “reasonably practicable” standard under Martyn’s Law. That standard will be relevant if a venue is criticised for failing to enforce a judicial ban that it had no realistic way of detecting. Conversely, venues should not be expected to become de-facto law-enforcement agencies beyond what is reasonable. Clear statutory guidance and inter-agency protocols will be essential.

Rights, practicality and likely legal considerations

Both reforms raise familiar balancing tests between public safety and individual rights. Bans that restrict attendance at social venues implicate freedom of movement and assembly and will need to be proportionate and time-limited to survive legal challenge. Operationally, critics argue the bans could be hard to police and that they risk further stretching probation services. Supporters say the measures are practical ways to impose meaningful punishment without defaulting to short custodial sentences that have poor rehabilitation outcomes.

The potential use of digital ID and facial recognition adds a layer of civil liberties consideration. While such technologies could make enforcement more practical, they also raise questions about privacy, data protection, and the long-term implications of routine surveillance in everyday public spaces.

What venue operators should do now

1. Read the official guidance: Familiarise yourself with the Martyn’s Law factsheets and SIA guidance, and note the implementation timetable so you can budget and plan.

2. Review risk assessments: If you serve the public (retail, hospitality, leisure, live events), ensure you have a documented risk assessment and an incident response plan that staff understand.

3. Train staff: Staff should know basic protective behaviours and incident reporting lines. If the sentencing reforms proceed, consider adding a policy for how to respond to requests from police or probation to exclude individuals.

4. Prepare for technology integration: Venues may want to evaluate the feasibility of digital ID or facial recognition solutions in the future, while balancing costs, practicality, and privacy requirements.

5. Protect privacy: Any ID-checks or data-sharing to help enforce bans must comply with data protection law; get legal advice before creating formal screening systems.

6. Engage local partners: Build relationships with local police and probation; coordinated local protocols will ease any practical overlap between safety duties and offender restrictions.

Bottom line

Martyn’s Law and the Government’s proposed offender bans are distinct tools aimed at two sides of public-safety policy: one strengthens venue preparedness against terrorism, the other broadens judicial options to restrict offenders’ access to social spaces. In practice they will overlap in operational and administrative ways, and both could involve technological solutions such as digital ID and facial recognition for enforcement. Both require clear guidance, funding and inter-agency working to avoid putting unreasonable new burdens on venue operators or undermining civil liberties. For now, Martyn’s Law is on the statute book with staged implementation; the offender bans remain a proposed element of sentencing reform that will require primary legislation and detailed rules before they take effect.

Catch a Thief UK

Catch a Thief UK: Venue Preparedness Checklist

1. Understand your obligations

Read the official Martyn’s Law factsheets and SIA guidance.

Identify if your venue/event falls under the standard or enhanced tier.

2. Conduct and update risk assessments

Document risks related to terrorism and public safety.

Include procedures for emergency response and incident management.

3. Train your staff

Ensure staff know basic protective behaviours and reporting lines.

Include guidance on handling potentially banned individuals if court/probation requests arise.

4. Plan for access control

Evaluate ticketing, ID checks, or entry verification procedures.

Consider how digital ID or facial recognition technology could assist future compliance while respecting privacy.

5. Protect privacy and data

Ensure any personal data collected (for ID verification or watchlists) complies with UK data protection law (GDPR / UK GDPR).

Limit data retention to what is necessary for safety and compliance.

6. Collaborate with authorities

Engage with local police, probation services, and other relevant agencies to clarify roles and procedures.

Develop clear protocols for cooperating with courts or probation to enforce bans.

7. Budget and plan ahead

Consider costs for staff training, technology integration, and updated security procedures.

Factor in the staged implementation timetable of Martyn’s Law to phase in changes responsibly.

8. Communicate with patrons

Inform customers of any new safety measures or access requirements.

Maintain transparency while balancing security, convenience, and civil liberties.