Arthur Marshall Hoyle, 67, was tried in the ACT Supreme Court and found guilty by a jury of raping one student, making unwanted advances on two others and showing another a pornographic PowerPoint slide.

The offences happened in Hoyle's office in April 2015, after he invited the students in to discuss allegations of cheating in their essays. The victims were all women and from overseas.

He is now in the Alexander Maconochie Centre serving a four year jail term, with two years' and six months' non-parole.

Solicitor Tom Taylor, of Ben Aulich & Associates, told the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday fresh evidence had come to light in two expert reports tendered at the man's sentencing.

He said Hoyle had been diagnosed with frontal lobe brain disease. The diagnosis meant effectively that his brain was undergoing a process towards dementia.

Mr Taylor said one of the reports, from a geriatrician, said an effect of the disease was disinhibition and an inability to control conduct and social interactions.

He said that report and another from a forensic psychologist identified that Hoyle was suffering from the condition at the time of the offending and the consequences of that condition.

The evidence was not obtained at the trial, he said.

Mr Taylor said the two experts have been asked to provide supplementary reports, which were being finalised.

Prosecutor Katie McCann said the matter was "interesting and complicated", and referred to Mr Hoyle's own evidence at his trial that the sexual offences did not occur.

The Crown had not seen the supplementary reports and was yet to decide whether it intended to call evidence in reply or make an application to cross-examine the witnesses, she said.

She suggested the matter be brought back once the application was served with all the evidence to be relied on.

Chief Justice Helen Murrell agreed and directed the application to adduce fresh evidence be listed for directions in December.

Hoyle is appealing the eight convictions on the grounds the jury verdicts were unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the available evidence.

On Wednesday, Mr Taylor was also to file an amended notice of appeal that said there was a miscarriage of justice after fresh evidence emerged after the trial.

There was also a miscarriage of justice in the way tendency evidence was used, and how the Crown addressed the jury and cross-examined Hoyle, the appeal says.

The trial judge's directions to the jury on complaint evidence, relevance of delay were also inadequate and led to a miscarriage of justice, the appeal says.

A further ground says the judge's directions on onus of proof were incomplete and inadequate.

The lawyers will also seek to argue the trial judge erred when he allowed the opinion of one of the women about Mr Hoyle's state of mind, and erred when he allowed the jury to hear the evidence of Professor Vanita Parekh.

Profession Parekh gave evidence at the man's trial about the "freeze syndrome" as a possible response to sexual assault.

The case returns to court for directions on December 5.