teract with Mr Taylor at all, rather, was instead berating the legal counsels’ preparation for the upcoming trial, denouncing it as “unprofessional” and “embarrassing.” Such conduct showed a complete disregard of TJ, and placed additional strain on both the legal representatives’ and Mr Taylor’s emotional states. Self-determination Another significant factor that constituted the conduct of the Koori Court as therapeutic was that it encouraged the self-determination of the offender. For instance, the condition of attending VAHS was not established by Magistrate Worthington, but rather, chosen by Ms Jones as a centre she would feel comfortable attending. As a result, the offender played a role in decision-making. This allows them to increase control over their life and provide them with direction, increasing their satisfaction with the outcome and hence, their chances of reform. Professor Shadd Maruna would concur, who emphasises the need for the offender to feel in control of their future as a means of reducing recidivism and increasing their likelihood of rehabilitation. Once again, this was not present in Mr Taylor’s case, who, due to limited judicial interaction, was likely to have felt powerless in altering his individual circumstance. Rehabilitation Thus, the more self-determined an offender, the greater the possibility for the offender’s rehabilitation. This possibility promotes TJ in that in can improve offender’s quality of life, and consequently, their mental wellbeing. A method of ensuring this is the “cognitive behavioural” theory outlined in James McGuire’s book What Works: Reducing Reoffending, which encourages offenders to think before acting and understanding the consequences of such actions. This theory could have been in the County Court, but more easily in the Koori Court. For example, Magistrate Wellington could have asked Ms Jones about her motivations behind the theft, and the reasons why fulfilling such motivations in future are not worth the legal repercussions that may follow. Such questioning increases understanding and sympathy amongst the legal counsels and Magistrate, but also promotes a process of ‘self-efficacy’ in the offender – what Michael King defines as ‘a person’s confidence in their ability to initiate and maintain change.’ Conclusion>