Raoul Agapis

Raoul Agapis was charged for break and enter and uttering death threats, for which he stood trial before Birmingham DCJ and a jury and was convicted.

“The appellant was brought into the courtroom from the detention area. Attempts were made to identify him. The appellant took exception to being referred to by the name ‘Raoul Agapis’ or ‘Mr Agapis’. He said that he was known as ‘the Man‘. The appellant did not acknowledge that he was the accused.”

He appealed against his conviction unsuccessfully in Agapis v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 132 where he argued the court controlled jurors by “Neuro Linguistic Programming”. 

Raoul Agapis applied for special leave to the High Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, in Raoul Agapis v The State Of Western Australia [2012] HCASL 186. The application was dismissed. 

Raoul Agapis then applied for judicial review and a writ of certiorari/mandamus and a declaration in respect of the decision of Birmingham DCJ in Agapis v Birmingham DCJ [2013] WASC 329 seeking to have his conviction declared “null and void”. He contended that “Australia has no legislative Courts and only Chapter III Courts of the Commonwealth Constitution 1901, therefore, natural justice applies in all courts.” 

“I, the living, breathing sovereign man known as Raoul of the family Agapis, In the Care of 66 St George’s Terrace, Perth, being of majority in age, competent to testify, my yes be yes and my no be no, do state that the truths and facts herein are of first hand personal knowledge are true, correct and complete so help me YHVH.”

The court held that the application was a collateral attack on the conviction and therefore an abuse of process.

He appealed this decision in Re Birmingham DCJ; Ex Parte Agapis [2014] WASCA 197, on the grounds the judge made jurisdictional errors, that he hadn’t received procedural fairness, and made allegations of fraud and perjury. 

“The appellant had a right of appeal against his conviction, which he exercised, but the appeal was dismissed. Dissatisfied with that outcome, he now seeks to attack the conviction by a different route. That is not permissible. None of the present or proposed grounds of appeal has any prospect of success and the appeal must be dismissed.”

Raoul Agapis again sought special leave from the High Court to appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal, in Raoul Agapis [2015] HCASL 125

“The applicant has not demonstrated any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision, an appeal to this Court would have no prospect of success, and it would therefore be futile to grant the enlargement of time sought by the applicant.”

In Agapis v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASC 164 . Raoul Agapis sought leave to issue a writ of summons in which he was named as the plaintiff, and the defendants were the State of Western Australia, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia, the Western Australian Police and two others, one being the victim of the offence with which the plaintiff was convicted.  The application was dismissed. 

“It appears from the indorsement of the plaintiff’s claim on his proposed writ that the plaintiff seeks to air grievances about the manner in which the trial resulting in his convictions in 2011 took place.  In the course of submissions before me this afternoon the plaintiff has also aired and made submissions about the conduct of his appeal against that conviction.  The indorsement of claim includes a claim for damages for false imprisonment. .. The writ does not raise a justiciable cause of action with any realistic prospects of success.  It re-agitates controversies that have already been determined adversely to the plaintiff.”

The Plumbers Licensing Board

A second matter ran concurrently to this matter, and ultimately came about as a result of the conviction. Raoul Agapis is a plumber, licensed as such in New South Wales. He applied to the Plumbers Licensing Board to be licensed as a Plumbing Contractor in Western Australia, and the Board refused the application, resolving that he is “not a fit and proper person to hold a plumbing contractor’s licence” due to “inaccurate and insufficient information provided to satisfy the Board that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence” and that “a pending charge for a serious offence is now a conviction”.

On the application form under the heading “Fit and Proper Test” he wrote:

“My name is Raoul Agapis. I have testimony from my mother as to my arrival on this planet. My father and her gave me the name of Raoul Agapis, not a legal fictional entity or a corporation that was created by a government such as RAOUL AGAPIS, AGAPIS Raoul, etc. I have no title I have neither assumed or inherited a title. I have proved all of above many times in court. Quite frankly, a piece of plastic does not make me a plumber [indecipherable] apprenticeship and years of experience make me a plumber. Police have lied and are severely corrupt in New South Wales. They have a lot of sour grapes in regard to me the man, Raoul Agapis”.

He appealed the matter to the Federal Court in Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2012] FCA 1375; 133 ALD 307. Raoul Agapis’ contention was that his challenge to the decision of the Board is a matter which ought to be heard and determined by a Chapter III court exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth, and that the Tribunal has denied him natural justice, and referred to being at a disadvantage pursuant to the “bias principle” discussed in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51. The appeal was dismissed.

Raoul Agapis applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] AATA 187 where he raised a number of constitutional challenges, citing many passages in Quick and Garran’s commentary out of context, which the Tribunal disregarded. The material before the Tribunal included a National Police Certificate for him “valid as at 21/03/2011” which disclosed the following further convictions:

  • 14 February 2005 – Resist officer in execution of duty – Convicted: Fined $100 with costs of $61
  • 22 May 2007 – Behave in offensive manner in/near public place/school –Convicted: Fined $100 with costs of $67
  • 23 June 2010 – Excluded person remaining in vicinity of licensed premises – Convicted in absentia “Warrant to issue”
  • 23 June 2010 – Resist officer in execution of duty – Convicted in absentia “Warrant to issue”

The Certificate also noted “pending charges” with a court date of 8 April 2011, namely “aggravated burglary & commit offence dwelling” and “common assault”. The Tribunal concluded that Raoul Agapis was not a “fit and proper person” to hold the licence for which he had applied, and affirmed the Boards decision.

Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2013] FCA 1221 was an appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal,  on the grounds that the Parliament had acted beyond its legislative power by purporting to confer judicial power upon a body which is not a court constituted under Chapter III of the Constitution, with the consequence that the Tribunal’s decision is invalid. There were several other allegations and assertions included under the heading of “Grounds relied on” which the court found travel beyond the scope of the question of law and, therefore, do not fall for consideration. The appeal was dismissed.  

In Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board [2014] FCA 400 Raoul Agapis appealed from this decision, and it was listed to be heard in May but postponed. He also filed an interlocutory application to stay the appeal proceedings arising out of certain personal disorders, as well as to obtain orders that the appeal be the subject of mediation. The Plumbers Licensing Board also sought a finding that he is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts together with consequential orders.

In Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board (No 2) [2014] FCA 1045 the court examined Raoul Agapis litigation history, and found he had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australian courts. The observations included such contentions as “no law passed in this State of Western Australia since Federation, has been lawful since the removal of 32 sections of the State Constitution of Western Australia before Federation, the State of Western Australia was only ever granted the right to alter the State Constitution and not change it, and this has the effect that the State of Western Australia Constitution has never been lawfully constituted, and that the Letters Patent for Office of Governor has never been complied with, therefore, there has never been a lawful executive government of Western Australia.” He also sought from the court damages of $4.8 million for negligence and a “Western Australia Plumber’s Licence in the Plaintiff’s correct name and entity”, which the court had no power to grant. The court ordered that the present substantive appellate proceeding would be dismissed, as well as an order imposed prohibiting Raoul Agapis from instituting proceedings in the court. 

Raoul Agapis sought an extension of time for special leave to the High Court in Agapis v A Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at Perth and Ors; Agapis v A Justice of the Federal Court of Australia at Perth and Ors [2015] HCATrans 185.

The matter concluded in Agapis v A Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at Perth and Ors; Agapis v A Justice of the Federal Court of Australia at Perth and Ors [2015] HCATrans 246.

“As to the merits of the application in the first proceeding, it is to be observed, first and contrary to the thrust of the applicant’s argument, that there are now a number of decisions of State Supreme Courts to the effect that, although section 20 of the Mutual Recognition Act refers in terms to registration in one State as “a sufficient ground of entitlement” for registration in another, sufficient ground of entitlement for registration in that sense means only sufficient in terms of qualification and experience and, therefore, as subject to such further conditions for registration in the State in which registration is sought as may satisfy the criteria of subsection 17(2). On that basis, such entitlements as the applicant may have had to be registered under section 20, while subject to satisfying the PLB that he was a fit and proper person to hold a plumber’s licence in accordance with regulation 17(1)(a) of the regulations, as the AAT found, certainly as counsel for the PLB fairly conceded, the contrary is by no means unarguable. .. In the result, I have concluded that the delay in relation to the first proceeding is so great and the prospects of success in each proceeding are so low the application for extension of time in each proceeding should be refused. In each proceeding the application for extension of time is therefore refused.”

He wasn’t satisfied with this decision either, and sought to challenge the outcome in Raoul Agapis v A Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal At Perth and Ors [2016] HCASL 66 but the application was dismissed.

Agapis v A Deputy District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia at Perth and Anor [2016] HCATrans 154 was an application for order to show cause regarding the vexatious proceedings order in Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board (No 2) [2014] FCA 1045. The High Court dismissed the application as there was an avenue open to him prescribed by the Act, that would enable him to challenge the order, but it would require documents to be taken to a judge for a judge to consider them.

Raoul Agapis then sought leave to file a notice of appeal from the vexatious proceedings order in Agapis v Plumbers Licensing Board (No 2) [2014] FCA 1045, in Agapis [2017] FCA 286 some two years out of time from the decision of the primary judge. Leave to appeal was refused.

“One of the main difficulties for Mr Agapis is that these submissions effectively go behind conclusions already reached by judges, courts and tribunals in proceedings which have been finalised and in respect of which any prospect for appeal is either exhausted or, as in this case, is well out of time. Despite the requirements of s 37AR(3), it is difficult for a person who has been declared a vexatious litigant to persuade the Court that leave should be granted to institute a proceeding in circumstances where such a broad sweeping approach is taken. To attempt to re-litigate out of time, in effect, all the matters on which the vexatious litigant has already lost, is not a course which is likely to be met with success as distinct from the preferred position of selectively identifying a specific and more precise complaint which requires ventilating. Unfortunately, by re-agitating or attempting to re-agitate so many concluded matters adversely decided to him, such an applicant is simply reimpressing on the Court reasons why he should not be permitted leave to issue proceedings. It is entirely inappropriate and pointless that, in an application for leave pursuant to s 37AO of the Act, the Court should attempt to re-hear, in effect, all of the proceedings on which the vexatious litigant has previously lost.”

Back in 2014, Raoul Agapis made a request for hearing of an appeal before a judge, but appeals from a decision of a registrar must be heard by a master. In a letter from the supervisor of listings, he was informed of this, and accordingly he was required to file a request for a hearing before a judge as without such an application the appeal would not otherwise be listed at the direction of the court. He did not file an application for an order that the appeal not be heard by a master, and the appeal did not proceed. By letter the State Solicitor’s Office later made a submission to the court that the case in question was inactive and requested that the proceeding be put on the inactive cases list. Raoul Agapis filed a notice of appeal in Agapis v Buckland [2019] WASC 3 which purported to be an appeal against a ‘decision’ made by the Principal Registrar to dismiss the case for want of prosecution, claiming that the Registrar exceeded their authority by exercising judicial authority when prohibited from doing so by chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution and the Mutual Recognition Act 1992. He attempted to put an argument that only a judge could place the case on the inactive cases list and that the notices given constituted an impermissible delegation of judicial power. The court dismissed the appeal as incompetent.

Not to seem out of character, Raoul Agapis filed a notice of appeal against the primary judge’s decision, and later an application seeking a stay of the appeal for 3 months as he was “preparing evidence to lodge and file in a competent court, instances of alleged malfeasance and corruption by Western Australian judicial members” which he claimed to have experienced.  The notice of appeal in Agapis v Buckland [2019] WASCA 75 was subsequently struck out on the ground that the appeal was instituted in contravention of section 8(2)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002.


Leave a Reply