24th March 2026
Clarity around responsibility is only really tested when something unplanned happens. As Martyn’s Law approaches, many organisations are taking a closer look at whether their structures reflect how risk is actually managed in practice.
Does your current organisational set-up really show who controls risk at your event(s)? It sounds like a straightforward question, but in practice often isn’t.
In reality, clarity is only tested when something changes — when assumptions you’ve been working on suddenly don’t quite hold up.
As commencement for #MartynsLaw moves closer, responsibility for risk is coming into sharper focus, with a defined Responsible Person for protective security. While the legislation is specific, and further guidance is expected, it’s prompting broader reflection across the sector.
Events aren’t single-issue environments. There’s always a lot going on, shaped by the people, the place, the timing and everything happening around it. Risk doesn’t sit in one place, it moves and overlaps.
On any given day, organisers are thinking about crowd dynamics, fire safety, structural integrity, safeguarding, staffing, transport, weather, public messaging and more. Often all at once, and often before the gates even open.
That’s where responsibility becomes important, not just who holds it, but whether the right people are involved to make it clear and workable in practice.
In most event organisations, it doesn’t sit neatly in one place. There’s usually an operational spine, with Operations running the venue or the event, and Safety and Security shaping how risk is identified and managed on the ground.
But it doesn’t stop there.
Marketing and Communications play a big part too. Often sitting in a different part of the organisation, sometimes outsourced, they shape what gets said, how it’s said and how people respond.
If all those parts aren’t aligned, gaps appear, usually because the organisational structure doesn’t reflect how risk is actually managed.
Martyn’s Law doesn’t redraw organisational charts, but it does cut across them. That’s where attention should be focused. This is where simple tools such as RASCI matrices come into their own, helping define who is Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted and Informed.
Reflecting back to the morning after the Manchester Arena attack, when I was on site at the Chelsea Flower Show, the term ‘Responsible Person’ wasn’t formally in play, but the reality of the role already existed in a holistic sense.
It and the other functions didn’t sit in isolation, they were supported by a strong operational and security structure, close coordination with the emergency services and clear lines into senior leadership. Decisions were collective, but responsibility and accountability was clearly understood.
That balance matters because while the role itself is important, the structure around it is what allows it to function properly.
Making it clear who holds that responsibility is what strengthens resilience.
And that often starts with something simple: a shared picture of what is happening, where it is happening, when it is happening, and who is responsible.
The next question is whether your structure supports that in practice, with the right people involved and responsibility clearly understood in all domains.
And this clarity doesn’t just matter internally, it matters to those outside the fence line too – partners, agencies, rights holders and stakeholders who may need to understand who holds what role, and how to engage.
Shared visibility helps support that understanding.
The National Events Database provides a simple way of making that picture clearer, helping organisers reflect on how responsibility and control are organised in practice and understood within the wider system.
There is still time before full enforcement of Martyn’s Law in April 2027 to test assumptions and ensure your event organisational structure supports how risk should be managed.
