On 16 January 2026, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) published a service instruction: Responding to Complaints about Public Displays. This contained guidance as to how the PSNI should “respond to, report and investigate incidents involving displays in public spaces.”

Since Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton spoke about the new service instruction at a Policing Board meeting on 5 February, there has been speculation in both traditional and social media about its implications.

Has the law changed? Has PSNI policy or operational process changed? What public displays are illegal? Who is responsible for their removal? This explainer sets out the context and implications of the new service instruction as clearly as possible.

[This is an explainer “prebunk” article. Prebunking means providing clear, evidence-based information about a topic before misleading claims spread widely. Rather than assessing a single claim, these articles explain key facts and context. Read more about our prebunk explainers here.]

  • What is a service instruction?

The PSNI defines Service Instruction documents as: “Practical instructions for service delivery to inform decision making in line with Service Policy.”

This is in contrast to Service Policy documents, which are “Principles to govern the organisation, reflecting the Chief Constable’s vision.”

Service instructions are not a law or policy. They exist at the level of operations.

  • Has the law changed?

No.

The 2026 service instruction creates no new legal powers. PSNI officers are relying on existing legislation.

However, there are some potentially relevant laws currently moving through Westminster. The Crime and Policing Bill includes a clause amending section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – as recommended by Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Jonathan Hall KC.

If passed, it will apply to all of the UK, although it has particular relevance to NI. Speaking on BBC Radio Ulster’s Nolan Show on 13 February, Mr Hall said that, to date, the PSNI can only seize an article (for example a flag) as evidence for a potential prosecution. The amendment will mean that flags can be seized in and of themselves, without having to link the flag to the prosecution of a specific person. 

This legislation is currently with the House of Lords. It will complement the new service instruction but is separate to it.

  • Have PSNI operational instructions changed?

Yes.

Service instructions clarify how officers should apply a law or policy and are intended to reduce ambiguity and ensure consistency.  During the 5 February Policing Board meeting, Deputy Chief Constable Bobby Singleton said:

“The purpose really behind this new service instruction is to try and make sure that our officers are clear in terms of what our expectations are with them in particular circumstances, how we want them to respond, how we want them to report, and how we want them to investigate the incidents that happen in public spaces”

DCC Singleton, interviewed on BBC NI’s Nolan Live on 11 February 2026, said that the PSNI have been “working with these guidelines for 12 months now.” So, in this context, the public may not notice an immediate big difference in practice.

  • Has PSNI policy changed?

No. A service instruction is designed to help police officers implement policy. It is not a policy in and of itself.

The service instruction sits within the PSNI’s 2016 corporate Public Safety and Public Order Policy. It is also informed by a wider context of, for example, the 2010 PPS Hate Crime Policy (2010) and PSNI frameworks such as 2022’s Hallmarks of Neighbourhood Policing.

The service instruction does not appear to replace a single previous PSNI policy on flags or public displays, but rather standardises and adjusts practice that was previously shaped by general policing guidance and the wider multi-agency framework established in 2005.

  • Evolving policy

Both general and PSNI-specific policy on flags and other emblems has evolved over the past couple of decades with a series of initiatives, evaluations and changes.

A Shared Future, a 2005 publication from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMdFM – the precursor to the current Executive Office) emphasised the importance of community dialogue and multi-agency partnerships to reduce sectarian displays. It envisaged PSNI enforcement as politically sensitive, with a preference for negotiated solutions.

This approach was reinforced in 2005 by the Joint Protocol In Relation To The Display of Flags In Public Areas agreed by the PSNI, the Housing Executive and government departments. Its aim was to limit the time flags are flown, remove tattered flags and avoid flags being put up in sensitive areas. 

The 2005 Flags Protocol established the principle that owners of land, property or street furniture (housing bodies, government departments, councils, private owners and so on) are primarily responsible for managing flags placed on them. It set out that the role of the PSNI was to “support partners [and] take forward consultation and negotiation with local community,” unless consultation failed, or if items must be seized as evidence, in which case the PSNI should take the lead in the removal of flags.

A 2010 evaluation of the 2005 Protocol concluded that while the Protocol had been “utilised well in some areas […] in overall terms, it has been largely ineffective.” Similarly, the 2021 Final Report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT Report) concluded that despite some good practice, the model of partnership working between public agencies had not worked.

DCC Singleton, during the 5 February Policing Board meeting, said the new service instruction was important in addressing “significant public and stakeholder criticism” of the PSNI’s perceived response, or lack thereof, in the past and that criticism that the force is not acting consistently leaving a perception of lack of care or unfairness.

On Nolan Live, Singleton gave an example of two paramilitary flags erected by the entrance to a primary school which took three or four months to resolve with the Department of Infrastructure, which he said was not appropriate or acceptable.

So, while PSNI and wider flags policy have not changed, clearly the new instruction is designed to implement some form of effective change. According to the Deputy Chief Constable, it was born out of a sense that existing practices were ineffective and is intended to clarify and standardise expectations and procedures across the PSNI, underlining that there is an expectation for officers to remove flags when it is safe to do so.

But how might this work in practice?

  • What flags, emblems and associated displays will be removed?

There is no list of “illegal” flags or displays in Northern Ireland.

Instead, there is a complex matrix of rights and legislation that the PSNI must navigate to determine whether a flag or display should be removed.

The 2026 service instruction is very clear that the PSNI has a duty to act when the display of material constitutes an offence, and/or where its continued display “will cause harm.”

The service instruction identifies a number of offences, sets of circumstances and powers that may justify police action, including:

Police must also act in line with the Human Rights Act (1998) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These include:

  • Article 8 – right to private and family life (this may include the impact of displays near homes, schools or workplaces).
  • Article 10 – freedom of expression (people have the right to display symbols).
  • Article 2 – protection of life, including the safety of officers and the public.

Police must balance these rights with  legislation when deciding whether intervention is necessary and proportionate.

  • Decision-making tests

The service instruction provides practical questions officers must consider, including:

  • Does the material constitute a criminal offence?
  • Does its physical presence create a hazard (for example, obstructing a roadway)?
  • Is it likely to cause disorder or unrest?
  • Is the display causing harm or intimidation to communities?

If none of these apply, the PSNI are unlikely to have grounds to remove the material.

  • Practical policing response

The service instruction describes a range of operational actions officers may take:

  • Gathering information and intelligence
  • Assessing community impact
  • Engaging with local communities and stakeholders
  • Working with landowners or public authorities
  • Supporting other agencies with legal duties to remove material
  • Investigating potential offences.

The instruction also signals an expectation that officers should act where removal is safe and straightforward, rather than allowing lengthy delays to develop. The guidance emphasises that “not making a decision, doing nothing or failing to act is not an option.”

On Nolan Live, DCC Singleton said the PSNI needs to be “far sharper” on this issue, that responses in the past weren’t “anywhere near dynamic enough” because they got “collectively bogged down” and that, as long as there is no risk of harm to officers or the public, the PSNI wants to see a “common sense, confident response”.

The Deputy Chief Constable noted some scenarios where articles are likely to be removed – such as where material is set by a roadside, or is chest or head height for officers.

Regarding community engagement, he said there have been issues where someone is “community worker by day, potentially paramilitary by night.”

  • Who is responsible for removing material?

A number of bodies, methods and processes around removal are identified within the service instruction document itself:

Removal by police

While the owners of the material, and the landowners, still have primary responsibility for removing the material, PSNI may remove it where an offence is suspected, and the material can be removed quickly and safely without risk to officers or the public.

The decision to remove material (where there is no immediate need to remove it to secure evidence) must be approved by the appropriate Senior Officer (Inspector or above).

PSNI officers may act first where necessary and address ownership issues afterwards if the situation requires urgent action. 

The Deputy Chief Constable told Nolan Live, “[If] an officer can remove [an] item safely, we will seek the forgiveness, or the permission if you like, from the landowner or property owner after the event rather than having to exchange emails or phone calls, potentially end up in a process that can take days, weeks or even longer.”

Owners/landowners

Responsibility for removing material continues to rest with the person who erected the display or the owner of the building, land or street furniture on which it is displayed. Property owners could include housing authorities, government departments or private landowners. 

If the owners are readily identifiable, the PSNI should contact them immediately and inform them about the material. PSNI should notify landowners if they have removed material or, if they have been unable to do such, they should establish with the owner when removal will take place.

All contact between PSNI and owners will be documented and followed up in writing. If removal would expose the owner or contractors to danger, police may support or assist the removal process.

Removal through negotiation or mediation

Negotiation with communities or stakeholders remains “a valid option” under the new service instruction. While this approach may prevent recurrence, it can take time and “can attract additional public confidence and reputational risks” to the PSNI.

  • Obligations for officers

In all cases, decisions about removal must be proportionate, lawful, necessary and accountable.

Officers must conduct a risk assessment considering safety of personnel, public safety, community impact and feasibility of removal.

  • Some examples

The new service instruction is only a few weeks old. Its practical application – including any challenges – may well emerge over time and real-life examples of the instruction working (or not) will further illuminate both its specific nature and its effectiveness.

However, during his appearance on Nolan Live, DCC Singleton tried to use some theoretical examples to show how the guidance should apply in practice. Examples included:

  • “Locals only” signage in an area with ethnic minority residents – PSNI would balance freedom of expression against potential intimidation or fear, consider if there is an offence, and potentially engage with the owner or remove material themselves.
  • Paramilitary flags presented as commemorative displays – some flags may not be illegal in themselves, but their use as instruments of intimidation could amount to harassment or other offences.
  • Legal flags used to intimidate residents in a new, mixed housing development – even lawful symbols could be investigated where evidence suggests they were erected to threaten or harass individuals.
  • Displays on bonfires – responsibility for removal would normally lie with the landowner rather than the PSNI.

This indicates that the PSNI will make case-by-case decisions about the removal of flags and displays, according to context and intent.

If the Crime and Policing Bill passes successfully through Westminster, this will give the PSNI further powers to seize articles without having to link them to the prosecution of a specific person and could expand the effects of this new service instruction significantly.