Anti-terror police boss backs Martyn's law at Manchester Arena Inquiry

Credit: PA

A legal duty to protect the public in crowded public places would be "transformational", a counter-terror policing chief has told the public inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing.

Private and public owners of venues and sites currently have no obligation to act on free advice from specialist counter-terrorism officers about threats of an attack and how to mitigate the risk.

Figen Murray, mother of Martyn Hett, 29, who was one of the 22 people killed in the May 2017 atrocity, is campaigning for Martyn's Law, which among other things is calling for venues and local authorities to have action plans against such attacks.

The Government's Protect Duty, which builds on Martyn's Law, had been intended to go to consultation this spring but the Covid-19 outbreak meant plans to canvass opinion among the leisure, entertainment and hospitality sectors have been put on hold.

Fiegen Murray, who's son Martyn died in the attack has been pushing for greater security at public venues. Credit: Family Photo

On Thursday, Lucy D'Orsi, deputy assistant commissioner at National Counter Terrorism Police HQ said: "I think there is always a gap in a system that is discretionary and I have always been an advocate that I think the way forward is new legislation.

"I don't think that it should be discretionary as to whether protective security is considered by a business or a site or an operator.

"I think the current system is good, I think that the security advice provided by CTSAs (counter-terrorism security advisers) is good ... but I think the absence of clear legislation does make it difficult.

"I think the gaps are there is inevitably a choice as to whether or not you choose to accept the advice or whether you choose to implement protective security at your location."

Ms D'Orsi said an operator would have the right to make a "measured and proportionate decision" in response depending on the size of a business but added: "I think it's important that if we are requiring people to consider protective security we do have to empower people that if they make a decision not to put that in and then there is an attack it is then for that person to justify why they chose not do that.

"I think, for me, that's the extent of where the legislation should be and you have to stand by your decision."

Counsel to the inquiry Paul Greaney QC said: "You require them to assess the risk and then you require them to take all reasonably practical steps to mitigate that risk?"

"Yes," replied Ms D'Orsi.

Mrs Murray has called for the Government to speed up the consultation and told the inquiry she felt it was "absurd" there is legislation for how many toilets a venue must have and how food must be prepared but nothing that holds venues to having basic security in place.

The inquiry, sitting at Manchester Magistrates' Court, continues next week and is expected to last into next spring.