Will Martyn’s Law change UK exam delivery?

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 became UK law on 3 April 2025 with implementation by April 2027. Named in honour of Martyn Hett, his mother campaigned for ‘Martyn’s Law’ to better protect the public in the event of a terror attack.

Schools, institutions and exam solution companies hosting exams for over 200 candidates fall squarely within the law’s scope.

As the deadline approaches, organisations must reassess their emergency preparedness. We’ve already seen an England school recently subject to a threat.

Why are exam venues subject to this law? An exam venue presents a unique vulnerability: many exam candidates concentrated in a single space, mobile devices prohibited, and an expectation of absolute silence prevails. If an attack occurs, transitioning from pin-drop silence to emergency action requires meticulous, pre-emptive planning.

Within exam delivery, to meet the law’s requirements, potentially the most complex challenge lies in emergency messaging. If the exam venue comes under attack, the exam administrators must instantly differentiate their communication to distinct audiences.

When a threat emerges, wouldn’t it be helpful to have an on-screen message for candidates, tailored to their part of the exam room?

Invigilators need immediate, actionable alerts to manage the room; exam candidates require calm, authoritative instructions to prevent a stampede; and external stakeholders, such as guardians and parents, must be managed via separate channels. For example, to prevent a frantic convergence on school gates, shared walkways, and car parks that could obstruct blue light/ emergency services, or enable secondary attacks.

How should exam centre providers update their processes? Operationally, exam organisations need to embed Section 7 of the UK Home Office’s guidance into their protocols. Within education, this focuses heavily on the ‘Guide, Shelter, Communicate’ maxim. Invigilators and exam administrators must Guide candidates to pre-identified safe routes, without triggering mass panic. If evacuation is compromised, they must offer Shelter, with mechanisms to lock down the exam hall dynamically and quietly.

Critically, Communicate is key to successful incident management. The digital exam and assessment community is uniquely placed to help. Test delivery software should provide functionality for on-screen messaging that can be displayed to directly advise the candidate of the situation, instructing them to leave the session. The exam is paused at that precise moment, and can be re-started from exactly where the candidate left.

The digital exam community offers step-change help to comply with Martyn’s Law

Additionally, the test software can be geo-specific – advising candidates at different parts of the exam room to depart via different exits, for example. This tailored and discreet messaging is yet another benefit of digital exam delivery. Electronic exam rosters can also be accessed quickly to ensure everybody is accounted for.

Evacuation processes are essential for safe exam centre delivery

Thankfully, invigilation and proctoring have become much more professionalised in recent times. But those controlling access and managing exam cohorts must ensure they are aligned with UK Security Industry Authority (SIA) standards, support, and guidance, and that people are demonstrably competent. Otherwise, the SIA can take enforcement action to address non-compliance.

So this only applies for sessions with more than 200 candidates? The majority of education and exam settings only require the Standard Tier provision. While the threshold for Standard Tier is 200 candidates, exam institutes and service companies should be mindful to align their processes for lower candidate volumes.

The digital exam delivery community must use this opportunity to revisit all delivery, not just those events with over 200 exam candidates.

Isn’t there an Enhanced Tier for over 800 candidates? Education institutions are exempt from the Enhanced Tier. The Standard Tier applies.

What should the exam community do? In the run-up to April 2027, here are ideas for some stakeholders.

1) Exam Centre Providers: Scout venues for layouts and evacuation protocols. Secure evacuation alternatives to anticipate a secondary attack. Consider implications for separate accommodation rooms. Train staff to ensure compliance.

2) Test Software Companies: Build functionality for session interruption and candidate notification in case of an attack. Note requirement for differentiation of notifications, depending on candidate/ workstation location.

3) Exam Owners: Ensure candidates are advised on what to do in the event of an attack, as part of their exam on-boarding and familiarisation process.