Police services of member countries of the Commonwealth of Nations typically use variants of the same system of ranks and rank insignia, which is based on that established by the British Army and used (with varying degrees of accuracy) by nearly all Commonwealth armies. The purpose of ranks and rank insignia is to identify people's positions within a hierarchy clearly, and this system is very good at doing so where it is employed correctly. However, a number of flaws have arisen and there is an unwarranted degree of complication and inconsistency, all detrimental to this purpose.
The object of this article is to establish, without being inconsistent with the general traditions of police ranks and rank insignia of Commonwealth countries (and other places that use the same system), the best possible standard model for the ranks and rank insignia, taking into account the need to accommodate variations due to the different circumstances of individual services.
Variants of the same system are used by other types of uniformed public services (such as fire, ambulance, border security and prison services) and the same sorts of problems have arisen in many of these organisations. Therefore much of this article is relevant to non-military uniformed public services generally.
Having an excessive number of ranks results in a top-heavy rank structure, unnecessary bureaucracy, inefficient supervision, people holding ranks that are higher than their roles warrant, and an overly-complicated and restrictive promotion system. The number of ranks an organisation requires depends largely on the number of levels of supervision, and the number of levels of supervision depends largely on the size of the organisation.
With any rank structure the distribution of personnel by rank must be more-or-less triangular – the higher the rank, the fewer people there are who hold the rank – or the organisational system will not function properly and resources will be wasted.
Some organisations – even if they have the right number of ranks – have ranks in the wrong positions, typically lower than they ought to be (which is not always clearly evident). It is reasonable to believe that a rank has the same status that it had in the past and that a rank in one organisation is at least comparable to the same rank in a similar organisation. Designating people with ranks that are superior to their actual positions is misleading; it makes those ranks less meaningful than they ought to be, which is detrimental to morale; and the impression of self-aggrandisement it presents damages the dignity and credibility of the organisation. Even if this practice didn't have negative consequences, there still wouldn't be anything to gain from it.
Under-ranking (i.e. holding a rank that is less than commensurate with the level of authority and responsibility) is much less of an issue than over-ranking. In fact under-ranking can be regarded as commendable, being indicative of higher standards and rejection of aggrandisement. Nevertheless, under-ranking can be misleading and under-ranking by more than one level should be avoided.
Promotion should not be regarded as a right. To reward people for long service, meritorious conduct or possessing valuable skills is not the reason for having a rank structure. Commendations, medals, pay increases (without promotion) and other things can be used for this purpose. For most ranks, whether a promotion takes place should be a result of the organisation's need for an additional person of a particular rank. In these cases the selection of a person for promotion should be based primarily on merit. There are instances where promotion may be virtually automatic on fulfilling certain criteria, and these cases are where people are promoted between ranks that are in terms of function several grades of the same rank. A promotion should not occur if it's likely to contribute to undermining the soundness of the organisational system.
Because the rank structure and insignia are derived from army ranks and insignia, army ranks are therefore the appropriate model for comparison and shall be used as such in this article. It is desirable that police ranks be at least approximately equivalent to their military counterparts – or, taking into account the fact that flaws exist in military rank structures, what their military counterparts should be. Having the same name as its military counterpart is a compulsion to ensure that a rank can be legitimately regarded as equivalent.
A complication is that, whereas in military services unneeded ranks are almost always omitted simply in order of seniority, in police services ranks are omitted non-consecutively in many more cases, and different services omit ranks at different levels. To have more than one rank for each level of command may not be necessary. Ranks can be omitted non-consecutively without diminishing the level of authority or responsibility – or any other attribute – of remaining ranks (so such alteration should not occur).
Generally, unlike military services, police services do not have separate career streams for commissioned and non-commissioned ranks. This means that if the rank of Sergeant is as high as it should be, higher non-commissioned ranks are unnecessary.
Omitting rank(s) below Sergeant is common. At least one rank below Sergeant must exist, and the existence of at least two of them is expedient in order to avoid top-heaviness.
There are two main approaches where non-commissioned ranks are concerned:
• Police services with a paramilitary ethos have the army ranks of Sergeant, Corporal and (unless omitted) Lance Corporal, but with Constable instead of Private.Both are acceptable (depending on the traditions of individual services).• More commonly a service has Sergeant with one or more constable ranks, Senior Constable being the common title for the highest.
The purpose of sergeants, corporals and lance corporals is to provide leadership, so there has to be a sufficient number of people for them to lead.
Owing to a lack of commonality where the title of the second-lowest constable rank is concerned, what should be regarded as the 'standard' title remains a question. (Pending resolution of this issue, in this article the second-lowest constable rank shall be distinguished merely by a Roman numeral.)
The best arrangements, and therefore what should be regarded as the acceptable arrangements, are:
• For services with a paramilitary ethos, either –Note: the second-lowest rank can be omitted.
- Sergeant, Corporal, Lance Corporal (if the number of people at this level is appropriately small), Constable; or
- Sergeant, Corporal, Constable I, Constable.• For other services – Sergeant, Senior Constable, Constable I, Constable.
Trainee titles (e.g. Cadet, Recruit) are beyond the scope of this article.
There are seven army ranks from Second Lieutenant to Brigadier, but these ranks encompass only four levels in a typical military chain of command (platoon or equivalent, company or equivalent, battalion or equivalent, and brigade). A similar discrepancy exists in police services. This means that it is feasible to omit several of the corresponding police ranks non-consecutively without diminishing the level of authority or responsibility of the remaining ranks.
Small services require fewer levels of command than others so they may omit more ranks.
The most common police ranks between sergeant and commissioner ranks are (in ascending order) Inspector, Chief Inspector, Superintendent, Chief Superintendent, and (less commonly) Commander.
The army ranks of Second Lieutenant to Captain comprise the company officer rank class, and Major to Brigadier comprise the field officer rank class. Commander and superintendent ranks coincide neatly with field officer ranks. Inspector ranks coincide neatly with company officer ranks.
Hong Kong's police service has designated the second-lowest superintendent and inspector ranks Senior Superintendent and Senior Inspector (Superintendent and Inspector being a level lower respectively). Making the title of the second-lowest superintendent or inspector rank distinctive by adding something like 'senior' is problematic. It does not accommodate the practice of non-consecutive omission well. Omitting the lowest inspector rank is very common, and the lowest superintendent rank is also omitted in many services. It would be nonsensical to have Senior Superintendent and Senior Inspector without Superintendent or Inspector to be senior to.
The right course of action is to have an additional word for the lowest superintendent and inspector ranks. 'Deputy' is the best choice. Deputy Commissioner provides a conspicuous precedent. A number of police services already have Deputy Superintendent. The position of Deputy Superintendent and Deputy Inspector in relation to Superintendent and Inspector respectively is as clear as it is possible to be.
It accommodates the practice of non-consecutive omission very well. In such cases the lowest commissioned ranks would inevitably be Chief Inspector and Inspector. If a superintendent rank were omitted, a service might have Chief Superintendent and Superintendent; or Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent; or the less likely combination of Chief Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent, which is still tidy even if one of the words seems redundant.
| Army: | Police: |
| Brigadier | Commander |
| Colonel | Chief Superintendent |
| Lieutenant-Colonel | Superintendent |
| Major | Deputy Superintendent |
| Captain | Chief Inspector |
| Lieutenant | Inspector |
| Second Lieutenant | Deputy Inspector |
An army may have Brigadier or the different but equivalent rank of Brigadier-General (not both). The former is a field officer rank and the latter is a general rank. The same principle applies to their police counterparts. A police service may have Commander or an equivalent commissioner rank.
If a police service were equivalent to an army brigade and the largest organisation within it were also equivalent to a (smaller) army brigade, the service could have both Commander (held by the officer commanding the largest organisation within it) and an equivalent commissioner rank (the Commissioner). Other than in this particular situation co-existence should not occur.
The head of an army holds a rank that is commensurate with the size of the service. For example, if it's approximately division-size, its head will be a major-general; if it's approximately corps-size, its head will be a lieutenant-general; if it's approximately field army-size, its head will be a 'full' general. In effect unneeded general ranks are omitted in order of seniority. In contrast the head of a police service normally holds the rank of Commissioner whatever its size, and unneeded commissioner ranks are omitted in reverse order of seniority.
Commissioner ranks normally include (in order of seniority) Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner.
Some services are large enough for an additional commissioner rank to be justified. Several services have made the mistake of interrupting the usual sequence by adding a commissioner rank above, instead of below, Assistant Commissioner, which causes needless inconsistency and hinders the ability to recognise a rank easily and accurately.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner is the best choice. It is added below Assistant Commissioner, the title is tidy, its style is consistent with that of the others, and the position of the rank is self-evident. (Prominent users of this rank include London's Metropolitan Police Service and Singapore's police service.)
In most of the the United Kingdom's police services the term 'chief constable' supplants 'commissioner' (i.e. Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable, and Assistant Chief Constable). However, other than the difference in the words themselves, they are effectively the same as commissioner ranks. Where this article mentions the word 'commissioner', 'chief constable' can be substituted in relation to services that use chief constable ranks. There is no adequate reason for something other than chief constable ranks to be regarded as an alternative to commissioner ranks.
It's common for small police services to have one or more commissioner ranks at or below Colonel level, which is not ideal. It is possible to avoid such an arrangement by having a clear difference between the appointment and rank of the head of a service (e.g. a person holding the appointment of Chief of Police might hold the rank of Superintendent). However, this would defy convention and the existence of a commissioner rank at or below Colonel level – though not ideal – is a tolerable practice, being within the limits of what is customary (after all, we're not talking about general ranks). This exception need – and therefore should – apply only to the head of a service.
That rank insignia of commissioner ranks are unique to those ranks (owing to the inclusion of the tipstaves device) means that they are clearly represented as ranks that are subject to this broad variation in seniority.
Two things must be considered to determine the appropriate levels for the highest ranks of a police service:
• The overall size of the service, to ensure that the head of the service doesn't rank too low.If only the size of the largest organisation in the service were considered and it was just assumed that the head of the service must rank one level higher than the head of this organisation, it's possible that the head of the service would rank lower than he/she is entitled to. For example, the military rank commensurate with command of over half a dozen Colonel level organisations is Major-General, not the rank between Colonel and Major-General.• The size of the largest command within the service (being a command that isn't excessively large owing to a poorly-conceived organisational structure), to ensure that the head of the service outranks the head of this organisation.
A police service might not be much bigger than the largest organisation within it (typically the territorial policing command), so it's possible that its head may be entitled to the same rank level as the head of the service. To avoid the head of a service having the same rank as the head of the largest organisation in it, either the former should be upgraded by one level or the latter should be downgraded by one level, depending on the circumstances.
For example, if the head of a service and the head of the largest organisation in it were equivalent to Lieutenant-General, but only marginally in the latter's case, and the next most senior commanders were equivalent to Brigadier (with only the deputy head of the largest organisation at Major-General level), it would be best to downgrade the head and deputy head of the largest organisation and leave the head of the service at Lieutenant-General level.
Conversely, if there were no such gap and there were several positions at the second-highest level, upgrading the head of the service would be preferable, as it is better to over-rank only one person who isn't outranked by any other member anyway than to under-rank several people.
The second-highest rank is used in either of two ways. It may be limited to the actual deputy of the head of a service (below, left), or it may be used for one or more other positions, including command positions (below, right).
Limiting the rank to the deputy head of a service (not also in command of an organisation of commensurate size) often results in one or both of the highest ranks being unnecessarily represented as higher than they actually are. This arrangement should be abolished in such cases.
If the second-highest rank is limited to the deputy head of the sevice and it's at or below Colonel level, it shouldn't be a commissioner rank. For example:
It's perfectly feasible for a service to have an official deputy head (not a command position) without that person being the only one to hold his/her rank. It's often the case that the head of the largest organisation in a service should hold that rank as well.
The titles of members of plain-clothed investigative organisations comprise their ranks preceded by the word 'Detective'. For example, Detective Constable, Detective Senior Constable, Detective Sergeant, and so on.
'Detective' could be, but need not be, added to commissioner ranks (a number of services don't add it to commissioner ranks). Even if they're experienced in detective work and in charge of detectives, people who hold these ranks are almost always above the levels where actual detective work is carried out.
Problems with poorly devised rank structures are exacerbated by ranks having the wrong insignia. For example, the London Metropolitan Police gives Commander the badge of a commissioner rank, while the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gives a commissioner rank the insignia appropriate for Commander. Other RCMP commissioner ranks are misrepresented as generals while the Met's Deputy Commissioner appears to outrank his own boss (the Met's current arrangement isn't even close to the best way of doing it wrong). Not only do Australian police services have too many sergeants (usually divided between Sergeant and Senior Sergeant), Australian senior sergeants are typically represented by the insignia of Warrant Officer Class II, a rank that no Australian police service has.
That army-style rank insignia are used means that there is a compulsion to ensure that police ranks are not less than approximately equivalent to the army ranks represented by the same insignia (except where the commissioner ranks at or below Colonel level).
That army-style rank insignia are used also means that the correct specifications for police rank insignia (including things like cap peak ornamentation and gorget patches) coincide with the correct specifications for army rank insignia.
Omitting ranks non-consecutively must not result in altering insignia of remaining ranks. Omissions may look untidy on a rank insignia chart, but that has no practical significance.
Generally in Commonwealth countries, gold buttons, buckles and insignia are worn in military and maritime services, and silver buttons, buckles and insignia are worn in civilian non-maritime uniformed public services. It's a good rule, but it's applicability depends on the strength of tradition of individual organisations. Exceptions include silver for armoured corps and gold for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Whether insignia are gold or silver has no bearing on whether ranks are represented accurately.
Ranks are represented using army rank devices according to the same formula, except that there is to be no Field Marshal-style design (because there is no police counterpart of that rank) and the Mameluke sword and baton device that is distinctive to general ranks is supplanted by a device that is distinctive to commissioner ranks. This device comprises crossed tipstaves superimposed on a wreath.
There is a case for removing the wreath, the argument being that the wreath doesn't add anything to its meaning and it makes commissioner insignia look too much like Field Marshal insignia.
Some police services currently use the Mameluke sword and baton device, which is wrong for two reasons. First and foremost, this design refers only to general ranks. Secondly, the ranks of police officers who wear this device are often significantly lower than the ranks of soldiers who are entitled to the same insignia arrangements.
|
|
|
sword & baton |
with and without wreath |
|
The crowns on the ends of the tipstaves are supplanted as appropriate. The tipstaves themselves are supplanted by different devices in non-police services.
The other devices are:
• Downward-pointing chevron.• Star. The star depicted in the charts below is that used in countries whose monarch is that of the UK (which is based on the star of the Order of the Bath), but the design may vary to any extent as long as it remains a star.
• Crown/national emblem. Services of countries with a crowned head of state use the relevant crown. Services of countries without a crowned head of state use a national emblem instead, which obviously must not be a star (see above).
  |
  |
  |
  |
|
UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Jamaica, PNG, etc. |
South Africa |
Singapore |
Bangladesh |
An invariable correlation between commissioner rank titles and the insignia that represent specific ranks is undesirable as it would result in many officers being represented as holding ranks that are considerably higher than the ones they actually hold. The insignia of the lowest possible commissioner rank (whatever its specific title happens to be) should be equivalent to the insignia of the lowest possible general rank; the insignia of the second-lowest possible commissioner rank (whatever its specific title happens to be) should be equivalent to the insignia of the second-lowest possible general rank; and so on.
Some police services are exceptionally large, such as where there is only one police service for an entire nation. It is therefore possible that a commissioner rank that is five grades above Chief Superintendent is justifiable. The correct insignia arrangement for this rank is included below.
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Field Marshal is in this position) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Equivalent ranks.
Note: the crown/national emblem worn by officers holding general/commissioner ranks may be replaced by two stars if a service so chooses.
Appropriate method of wear (in accordance with what is customary for different ranks):
• Dress coats and mess jackets, commissioned ranks: metallic devices on epaulettes.• Dress coats and mess jackets, sergeants and below: cloth insignia on upper sleeves.
• Shirts, jumpers and utility garments, commissioned ranks: shoulder slides.
• Shirts, jumpers and utility garments, sergeants and below: shoulder slides or cloth insignia on upper sleeves.
Commissioned army ranks are divided between several classes and different rank classes have different items of uniform or insignia. This custom is emulated by police and other non-military uniformed public services. The correct arrangement for each rank is equivalent to that of its military counterpart.
Army officers have ornamentation on the peaks of their blue dress caps. The (correct) designs are:
• A stripe along the outer edge (Major and Lieutenant-Colonel).• Oak leaves along the outer edge (Colonel and Brigadier).
• Oak leaves along both edges (Brigadier-General and above).
In armies 'full' colonels and higher-ranking officers have gorget patches. The correct embellishments are:
• For Colonel and Brigadier, a strip of cloth braid (on patches for coats) or double-length of cord (on patches for shirts).• For Brigadier-General and above, gold oak leaves and acorns (on patches for coats) or gold double-length of cord (on patches for shirts).
|
|
COAT: 
SHIRT: 
|
COAT: 
SHIRT: 
|
|
|
|
|
COAT: 
SHIRT: 
|
COAT: 
SHIRT: 
|
