Peter Liddy - now aged in his 80s - is due for release on June 4 after serving his sentence for child sexual offences in South Australia between 1982 and 1986.
SA Attorney-General Kyam Maher has applied to the Supreme Court for Liddy to either be indefinitely detained, or the subject of an extended supervision order.
To make a decision, the court requires reports from two medical experts on whether Liddy is unwilling or incapable of controlling his sexual instincts.
On Wednesday, Liddy's lawyer Jeff Powell SC made submissions on his application to have the Crown's application stayed, on the grounds that it was "unjust, unreasonable and an abuse of the court process".
In 2019, the Crown sought a report from their "trusted and hand-picked expert", forensic psychiatrist Craig Raeside, on whether a similar detention application should be filed, given Liddy's parole application at that time, Mr Powell said.
"The Crown concedes that there's no question about incapacity to control sexual instincts," Mr Powell said.
"So the real question is … Mr Liddy's unwillingness and on that topic, Dr Raeside said 'I would not support a finding that Mr Liddy is unwilling to control sexual behaviour'," he said.
"There's nothing new here … what has changed since 2019 is, of course, he's older, he's frailer and he's more unwell."
The report was based on "identical" sources being relied on in the current application, pointing to "the futility of launching a fresh investigation", he said.
Liddy was jailed in 2001 for a minimum of 18 years for sexually abusing four boys while working as a coach at Brighton Surf Life Saving Club and for offering to bribe one of the victims.
All previous parole bids have failed, with Parole Board chief Frances Nelson saying Liddy engaged in victim blaming and had no empathy.
Alison Doecke KC, for the attorney-general, said the way in which hundreds of unproven allegations involving seven victims were taken into account by Dr Raeside was "superficial".
She paraphrased a judge from a relevant case as saying that the correct approach was to ask the medical practitioners to precisely articulate how unproven allegations are taken into account in assessing risk.
If Liddy were freed, he should be strictly supervised for six months and subject to a period of home detention, Ms Doecke said.
Mr Powell said a three-month interim supervision order was more appropriate, and it should not include any home detention.
He noted his client had never used a computer or the internet and he did not oppose proposed restrictions if he were released.
Justice Rachael Gray reserved her decision until May 20.
10°C