digenous offender who made a guilty plea, thus was able to be sentenced in the Koori Court. This option is not available to those who do not identify themselves as Indigenous Australian and do not plead guilty. Ms Jones spoke directly with Magistrate Wellington and the Koori elders about her abusive relationship and suffering of post-traumatic stress disorder. Magistrate Wellington suggested Ms Jones attend a mental health service that specifically targets Indigenous Australians, and allowed Ms Jones to choose the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service (VAHS), which she must attend within the next 2 months. Ms Jones was given no conviction. The second case was a preliminary hearing observed in the County Court and was presided over by Judge Lacana. The defendant in this case, Mr Taylor, was charged alongside two colleagues for fraud and financial deception due to forging documents to defraud clients, allowing him to accumulate over $100 million in loans. Judge Lacana had an oppressively negative attitude, and expressed dissatisfaction in the legal counsels’ preparation for the upcoming trial. After ordering the defence counsel to issue subpoenas to relevant witnesses, Judge Lacana adjourned the trial till Wednesday the 19th of April to allow the parties for further time to prepare. The Adversary System The primary means through which the Koori Court exhibited TJ was its inherent rejection of the adversary system. Based on its requirements that two parties present their case to an impartial adjudicator in accordance with strict rules of evidence and procedure, the adversary system has come under scrutiny for the emotional impact it can have on those involved. Criminology professors Meredith Rossner and David Gait go as far to claim it epitomises the ‘failures of traditional western-style processes’ with its intimidation and humiliation of the victims and their families, and its marginalisation of the accused – both of which undermine TJ. Such marginalisation could be seen from the mere layout of the County Court. Mr Taylor was seated in a box at the back of the room, distanced from the bar table and judicial bench. This distance legitimised the unwillingness of the court to consider Mr Taylor’s individual circumstance. This was antithetical to the proceedings of the Koori Court, which broke down the conventional barriers enforced by the adversary system. Instead of a judicial bench, Magistrate Wellington was seated at the bar table with the accused. Here, the power complex of the Magistrate was eradicated, and the offender was provided with a ‘place and voice’ where they could express their concerns >