Isenglaas v Shiyaad

[2025] QDC 20

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Isenglaas v Shiyaad [2025] QDC 20

PARTIES:

BO ISENGLAAS and ALI SHIYAAD

FILE NO/S:

2535/24

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Pine Rivers

DELIVERED ON:

10/03/2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Friday 21 February 2025

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

2.   NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

SOLICITORS:

For the appellant: Mr Isenglaas appearing in person

For the respondent: L. Kerr of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

1. On 20 August 2024, the appellant, Mr Bo Isenglaas was convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court at Pine Rivers of disobeying the speed limit. A fine plus costs were imposed by way of sentence, totalling $538.50. Mr Isenglaas appealed to this court.  His notice of appeal stated as the grounds, first, the respondent did not have locus standi, and second, “[h]is Honour violated my common law rights.”  The respondent to the appeal was identified as Mr Shiyaad.

1. Office Shiyaad was a legal officer with the Queensland Police Service (the QPS), prosecuting the offence.  The fact that he was identified by Mr Isenglaas as a party to the trial, and again as a party to the appeal, is indicative of the misunderstanding Mr Isenglaas laboured under before his Honour, and again on appeal, as to who the complainant was and the nature of the proof of the offence. 

1. It is convenient briefly to say a little about the trial.  The trial occurred on a single day.  It began with Mr Shiyaad announcing his appearance as legal officer for Queensland Police Prosecutions.  Mr Isenglaas began by immediately raising the standing of the prosecutor, and in particular, his mistaken belief that Officer Shiyaad was representing the QPS. (I note immediately that Officer Shiyaad did not say he was representing the QPS.  Rather, he said he was a legal officer for Queensland Police Prosecutions.) 

1. Mr Isenglaas was prepared for this argument. Referring to the Supreme Court decision of Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22 he asserted that the QPS did not exist. Mr Shiyaad answered that proposition by pointing out that the QPS might not exist as a legal entity, but the Commissioner of the Police did, and that in broad terms, as an officer of Police Prosecutions, he could represent the Commissioner. The learned Magistrate agreed.

1. The next point that Mr Isenglaas raised was the question of whether the court (note the trial still had not started at this stage) was “a court of common law jurisdiction”. His Honour pointed out that the court had jurisdiction to hear the complaint under section 19 of the Justices Act 1886 (the Justices Act).  Mr Isenglaas asked if his common law rights would be protected in the court, and his Honour replied that he would receive a fair trial.  What was evident then, and again now, is that Mr Isenglaas firmly believes that he has common law rights, identified, quaintly, as arising from the Bill…