Chronology: native title experience In 2006, the Boonthamurra native title claim was commenced on behalf of the descendants of 24 named apical ancestors, not including the apical ancestors of the Booth/Fisher family or the McCarthy family. Coral King’s apical ancestor whom she understands to be Boonthamurra is her grandmother, Toney Booth. Coral applied to the court to join the Boonthamurra claim and an independent anthropologist was appointed by the court, with the consent of all parties, to see whether agreement could be reached as to which families should be a part of the claim. This attempt was unsuccessful and in 2014, Justice Mansfield determined that the Booth family were not Boonthamurra and they were removed as respondents to the claim. According to Coral and anthropologist Dr Fiona Powell, Justice Mansfield’s 2014 judgment contained significant errors which have affected all the subsequent proceedings. In particular, Justice Mansfield relied on the ‘Mutawindji report’, which said ‘All the evidence places Kungardutyi in the area immediately east and north-east of Tibooburra and around the southern parts of the swampy areas around Lake Bulloo.’ However, Dr Powell described how this was a misquote of the relevant anthropologist, who had actually said in her primary report ‘All this evidence places …’ [italics added]. Dr Powell knew the anthropologist and knew that she was aware that there was other evidence that had not been examined, making the one word difference significant. Meanwhile, in 2008, the Wongkumara people claimed Country to the south west of the Boonthamurra claim area, extending into northern NSW. Coral’s cousin, Geoffrey Booth, lodged their native title claim in 2016. In 2017, Justice Jagot struck out that application74 after the Wongkumara people (supported by the NTRB) argued that the application was not properly authorised by all group members (as per s 61, Native Title Act). In that 2017 judgment, Justice Jagot relied on the 2014 judgment, and specifically on the finding which relied on the Mutawindji report. Justice Jagot found that the Kungardutyu Punthamara application sought to relitigate an issue already determined in earlier proceedings and was therefore an ‘abuse of process’. In November 2017, after the Kungardutyi Punthamara claim was rejected, Coral and her family applied to be joined to the Wongkumara claim. In 2020, the court rejected Coral’s application to join as a respondent.75 84 Women in Native Title: Native Title Report 2024 Dr Powell told my team that she is one of the few anthropologists who has conducted fieldwork and also compiled extensive ethnographic and historical records relating to the relevant area. She spoke about how, when she became aware of the ‘terrible injustice’ done to Coral’s family due to the errors in the evidence provided in native title proceedings about Coral’s ancestors, she began helping first members of Coral’s group and then Coral herself on a pro bono basis. From her professional experience and her research on Coral’s case, Dr Powell said she felt that there was an underlying lack of appreciation in the anthropological and legal community of the complexity and differences in naming practices associated with pre- and post-sovereignty groups or tribes as members of these groups dealt with the impacts of dispossession and forced relocation. In Coral’s opinion, judges appear to be ill-equipped to properly assess the evidence and make the kinds of decisions that they have to make around connection. A key theme of Coral’s story was her family’s inability to secure funding for legal representation, despite the NTRB funding and representing opposing groups. Coral felt this inequitable resource allocation was unfair and that her family ‘never stood a chance.’ Coral and Dr Powell felt that there is an inherent conflict of interest in the situation where an NTRB is responsible for funding decisions in relation to two opposing groups, yet funds only one of these groups. Coral and Dr Powell described significant efforts to secure pro bono legal representation which had, at the time of interview, not been successful. They reported being told by several lawyers approached to assist Coral that they had a conflict of interest because they worked with the NTRB on other cases, including some relating to Coral’s country, so could not represent her effectively against them. At one point, Coral secured the services of a lawyer in another state through referrals. However, he was not acting pro bono as Coral had at first believed, and Coral ended up spending her entire stolen wages compensation