Previous research undertaken by CAJ highlighted persistent ambiguity in the approach to responding to hate expression, both in terms of when such expression reaches the threshold of criminality and who has a duty to remove it. Overall this has created a fragmented response to the removal of hate materials in public space. Earlier this year, important policy developments sought to address these ambiguities, most notably the publication of the new PSNI Service Instruction ‘SI0226: Responding to Complaints about Public Displays’ on 16 January 2026.

A human rights watershed? From balancing public order to a rights-based approach

Recent policing practice (particularly following disorder in Ballymena, which went viral globally) suggests a growing willingness by the PSNI to categorise materials as racist hate crime where evidential thresholds are met. This may signal a more robust stance where harm can clearly be identified.

The new PSNI Service Instruction marks a further positive development. This Instruction demonstrates a departure from the previous approach, which was grounded in a public order lens. This led to a largely a non-interventionist approach by the PSNI which was not fit for purpose when dealing with incidents where flags or other items were instruments of intimidation. The focus on public disorder implications did not fully engage other related offences such as intimidation, harassment, or stirring up hatred. The human rights analysis undertaken by the PSNI largely centred on not interfering with the freedom of expression of people erecting signage or flags, with insufficient attention to the rights of those harmed. Too often, such displays were lightly policed as matters of ‘community tension’ rather than potential human rights violations or offences.

Laying down the law

The January 2026 Service Instruction commits the PSNI to policing a range of domestic statutory offences relevant to hate expression in public space. These include:

• Part III of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (stirring up hatred and arousing fear);

• The Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (intimidation);

• The Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997;

• Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to support for proscribed organisations; and

• General offences such as criminal damage and breach of the peace.

Earlier guidance did not strongly focus on these offences, contributing to perceptions that removal of hate expression occupied a statutory grey area. Therefore, making these offences explicit is significant. It signals that hate expression is more than a symbolic harm; it also engages serious criminal offences where thresholds are met.

The Instruction places clear obligations on the PSNI to act in respect of harms caused by such displays. Both in the Instruction and at its launch, the PSNI stated:

“Not making a decision, doing nothing, or failing to act is not an option.”

The new Instruction requires officers to make objective assessments of location, context, and potential harms alongside - but not secondary to - community tensions. This represents a shift toward a structured, evidence-based approach rather than reliance on informal negotiation with ‘community leaders’. Senior command aim to equip officers to make consistent assessments, promote uniformity in removals, and avoid inertia or delay.

The Instruction also caters for complex or high-profile cases requiring a Community Impact Assessment. This enhanced process is intended to be transparent and to consider all viewpoints involved in disputes over public displays.

Assessing the harms: Content vs Context

The consistency of the implementation of the new Instruction depends on a framework rooted in objective assessments of both content and context. In Northern Ireland’s contested socio-political landscape, context-based analysis is crucial, particularly regarding the timing and location of materials displayed in public space. The Instruction draws on earlier research by CAJ which distinguished between:

• Content-based hate expression: material inherently abusive in the Northern Ireland context (e.g. explicitly racist or sectarian slogans, misogynistic abuse, or flags such as Nazi or apartheid-era symbols used to incite hatred); and

• Context-based hate expression: material acquiring discriminatory meaning through placement, timing, or association, such as flags used to intimidate residents from taking up housing or paramilitary displays placed near new-build estates associated with the “other” community.

While the Instruction sets out this framework clearly, implementation will require supervision, oversight, training, and meaningful community engagement to achieve fairness and consistency.

Implementation and inter-agency responsibility

The PSNI have consistently maintained that primary responsibility for removing hate materials lies with property or street furniture owners, while recognising their own facilitative role and their responsibility when offences have been committed.

A key weakness in the previous approach was that the Department for Infrastructure approach to removal of hate expression was itself flawed, relying on evidence of community support for removal, and focused on risks of ‘community tensions.’ This effectively placed a veto on removing harmful hate expression. There was a lack of clarity over the PSNI role, with DFI often deferring to PSNI assessments of community tension and disorder risk, but PSNI stating that they did not carry out risk assessments on behalf of DFI. This created ambiguity regarding responsibility and the basis for removal.

CAJ particularly criticised the DFI approach for the conflation of ‘community support’ for specific expression with the will of paramilitary organisations. DFI has committed to reviewing its policy and is working with PSNI. Arising from the Service Instruction is a new series of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) between the PSNI and the Department of Infrastructure and other relevant authorities such as housing agencies. While these are awaited, challenges remain such as threats and safety concerns for staff and contractors, property ownership complexities, and political sensitivities. The Instruction is therefore hopefully the first cornerstone of a wider administrative shift in addressing hate expression removals.

Cutting the Gordion knot?

Judge Marrinan in his 2020 Independent Hate Crime Review stated that it was “time to cut the Gordion knot and produce a recommendation which can form the basis of reasoned debate when the issue of improving hate crime legislation is placed before the assembly”. However, the hate crime legislation currently before the Assembly makes little provision concerning hate expression and hate speech. Movement toward implementing Recommendation 15 of the Review - to introduce “a clear and unambiguous statutory duty on relevant public authorities…to take all reasonable steps to remove hate expression from their own property and, where it engages their functions, broader public space” - remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, if properly implemented and reinforced by clear inter-agency Memorandums, the new Service Instruction may represent a significant step forward in fulfilling international human rights obligations to prevent and counter racism in all its manifestations. It signals commitment to rights and equality. Ultimately, however, structural change will depend on translating principles into confident, proportionate, and consistent operational decisions on the ground. Whether the Instruction proves transformational depends on implementation and oversight – as noted by ACC Singleton at the launch, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”.