Sheriffs Office and the law

bik_ireland

Hi.
I am aware of an incident in which a sheriffs officer entered a company premises and demanded special treatment because of his office. He showed his credentials and when asked if the nature of the business was related to his duties he replied that his business that day was of a personal - or account nature. He was very intimidating and demanded to see a manager of a department that did not actually work from that location.
The person who suffered the abusive behaviour reported the incident to the sheriffs office - using the Irish version of their name and a personal email address and specifying that this was NOT a company complaint but rather a complaint from a private citizen and requested to keep their information confidential.
The sheriffs department official (the recipient of the complaint) promptly discovered who the complainant was and revealed the entire issue to a director of the complainant's employer - who then requested to speak with the employee.

Now - is any of this legal? I am sure that using the credentials of a sheriffs office agent for personal gain (preferential treatment by way of intimidation) at least constitute abuse of position - if not corruption. I also would think that there is some illegality under GDPR where when asked NOT to share any personal information - the sheriffs office promptly did the exact opposite.

Any advice appreciated.

Under His Eye

Was the sheriff there to collect a debt form this person?

bik_ireland

No. The person he intimidated was just an employee of a company. Also - when asked if it was official he stated it was personal business - to do with an account he personally held with that company (a service provider)

ohnonotgmail

why did they complain to his employer if he was there in a personal capacity? Surely the person who complained used information obtained through the course of their business to contact a third party.

Del2005

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why did they complain to his employer if he was there in a personal capacity? Surely the person who complained used information obtained through the course of their business to contact a third party.

He used his employer Id and power to deal with the company in for a personal matter. In a private company that would be a major ethical issue at least and most likely lead to termination, since its a public body very little will likely happen.

ohnonotgmail

Del2005 wrote: »

He used his employer Id and power to deal with the company in for a personal matter. In a private company that would be a major ethical issue at least and most likely lead to termination, since its a public body very little will likely happen.

what power? he wasn't there to collect a debt.

bik_ireland

The person who complained about his behaviour was doing so in a private capacity as a citizen that was intimidated during the course of their duty. The person did not want to involve their employer as they were wary of any repercussions.
Nobody should have to tolerate that. Particularly where the party being complained of abused his public office as a method of intimidation. If a person is assaulted during their working day by someone - surely they would quite rightly to report the assault to the Gardaí, for example?

Under His Eye

So the sheriff was there executing a court order.

Wheety

Under His Eye wrote: »

So the sheriff was there executing a court order.

Did you not read anything in this thread?

The person was there on personal business, not official business.

They tried to use their position in the Sheriff's Office to get preferential treatment.

milhous

I misread the first bit, the person reporting it used their irish name.. I see. I actually misread the whole thing.

Starting again. The problem is firstly, intimidation because he used his name and job title to speak to who he thought he should be speaking to albeit in a personal capacity. A complaint was made about him, probably went to him, and he went to the company about this person. I think the complaint should probably go to the court services.

nuac

imho that sheriff's officer was out of order. His conduct should have been reported to his superior

davindub

bik_ireland wrote: »

The person who complained about his behaviour was doing so in a private capacity as a citizen that was intimidated during the course of their duty. The person did not want to involve their employer as they were wary of any repercussions.
Nobody should have to tolerate that. Particularly where the party being complained of abused his public office as a method of intimidation. If a person is assaulted during their working day by someone - surely they would quite rightly to report the assault to the Gardaí, for example?

Your friend actually wasn't acting as an individual. The sheriff was a customer of the company and your friend the employee dealing with the customer.

The company should have it's own processes for dealing with customers.

Intimidation would infer that the possibility of physical harm was used, so it's not relevant here.

But yes the sheriff was out of line.

bik_ireland

bik_ireland wrote: »

sheriffs officer ...showed his credentials...- or account nature.

The sheriffs department.

the credentials of a sheriffs office agent

What’s a sheriffs officer?

What “credentials”?

What the hell is a “sheriffs department”?

I’m calling shenanigans here, none of this sounds remotely credible. Also LOL at the idea that any of what you described amounts to “corruption”.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s a sheriffs officer?

What “credentials”?

What the hell is a “sheriffs department”?

I’m calling shenanigans here, none of this sounds remotely credible. Also LOL at the idea that any of what you described amounts to “corruption”.

County Sheriff http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1920/act/26/enacted/en/print.html

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

County Sheriff http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1920/act/26/enacted/en/print.html

Pardon me the import of my post may have been unclear. I’m perfectly aware of the sheriff system. However I’ve never come across a department of sheriffs, nor have I seen them wield credentials. In fact barring 2 counties there are no permanent stand alone sheriffs in Ireland anymore.

Since the two standing sheriffs are solicitors (in fact all sheriffs are solicitors) I find the idea that any of the above happened to be extremely unlikely.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Wheety wrote: »

Did you not read anything in this thread?

The person was there on personal business, not official business.

They tried to use their position in the Sheriff's Office to get preferential treatment.

It's impossible to figure out what's going on in the op to be fair

fritzelly

Could be said he was using his position for personal gain - not really on and worthy of a telling off (but not much more than that would happen). Have similar happen in my job...I know the owner, director blah blah - ok so why are you coming to me then. Just brush it off and deal with them same as anyone else.
As for GDPR stuff - you made a complaint and they passed it to the relevant dept to deal with. How is that passing passing personal information to non relevant individuals?

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pardon me the import of my post may have been unclear. I’m perfectly aware of the sheriff system. However I’ve never come across a department of sheriffs, nor have I seen them wield credentials. In fact barring 2 counties there are no permanent stand alone sheriffs in Ireland anymore.

Since the two standing sheriffs are solicitors (in fact all sheriffs are solicitors) I find the idea that any of the above happened to be extremely unlikely.

There are 20 appointed Sheriffs in Ireland (*unless Dublin and Cork now only have 1?).

4 County Sheriffs (*2 in Dublin and *2 in Cork) and a further 16 Revenue Sheriffs, there are also 14 County Registrars, Registrars are not quite the same though.

We don't know if he was a County or Revenue Sheriff or even perhaps a Registrar.

4ensic15

A Sheriff can have "court messengers" to assist him. There is one such messenger I know who has a propensity to throw his weight around and describes himself as "the Sheriff".

milhous

4ensic15 wrote: »

A Sheriff can have "court messengers" to assist him. There is one such messenger I know who has a propensity to throw his weight around and describes himself as "the Sheriff".

I'm not sure but I think when authorised by the sheriff the court messenger has the same powers.

However when there's no court order it doesn't make difference, there's no authority

Captain Obvious

Would this not be a data protection issue? Could you make a complaint to the commissioner here?

Peregrinus

davindub wrote: »

Your friend actually wasn't acting as an individual. The sheriff was a customer of the company and your friend the employee dealing with the customer.

The company should have it's own processes for dealing with customers.

Intimidation would infer that the possibility of physical harm was used, so it's not relevant here.

But yes the sheriff was out of line.

This.

If a public official tries to use his official status to secure some private or personal advantage (like priority treatment from a service provider) that's corrupt, and it's a matter which should be brought to the attention of his superiors.

But the proper party to bring it to their attention is the organisation from which he was seeking to obtain advantages - in this case, the service provider, and not the individual employee of the service provider who happened to be dealing with him.

The proper course for the individual was to report the matter to his superiors and let them deal with it.

Oh, and I share the scepticism expressed by others about the story in the OP. It doesn't really add up, for the reasons already mentioned. But it may be that somebody is just taking American terminology and notions and applying them to a situation which did in fact happen in some form in Ireland.