Scrapping self-defence laws for people accused of assaulting police in the belief they were unlawfully arrested would rob innocents of an important legal protection, defence lawyers say.
Veteran barrister Jack Pappas and solicitor Ben Aulich have urged the ACT Government to drop the proposed changes, unveiled late last year.
But the Attorney-General Simon Corbell has defended his bill, arguing the ACT is catching up to other jurisdictions in protecting frontline officers from harm.
Earlier this month Mr Pappas and Mr Aulich wrote separate letters to Mr Corbell.
Last year the pair successfully argued self-defence on behalf of two clients - winning rare indemnity costs orders - who are now pursuing civil damages claims against the Australian Federal Police.
''Innocent citizens of the territory should not be robbed of the important protection of self-defence on the terms proposed,'' Mr Pappas wrote.
Currently self-defence provisions allow defendants to use reasonable force to resist what they believe to be unlawful arrest.
The Government has argued the provision, which harks back to 17th century England, is outdated and irrelevant.
The changes would mean so long as a police officer successfully argued they honestly believed the arrest was lawful, self-defence could not apply - even if it wasn't lawful.
Defendants would still be able to claim self-defence in the face of harm or threats from police.
''Police officers acting in good faith in terms of an arrest should not be subject to an assault,'' Mr Corbell said yesterday.
''In the Government's view it's not reasonable to permit the defence of self-defence purely because the assailant believes the arrest was unlawful.''
But Mr Pappas said the focus on whether police believed they were doing the right thing was ''simply unjustifiable''.
''It is hard to imagine a more ephemeral and subjective assertion than that of simple belief,'' he wrote.
And Mr Aulich said self-defence was an important and entrenched legal protection.
''To effectively rob a citizen of self-defence because a complainant is a police officer is bound to leave unjust outcomes,'' he wrote.
One of the lawyers' clients, Danny Andrew Klobucar, was held up by Mr Corbell, in a speech to the Legislative Assembly, as an example of why the law should be changed.
But Mr Pappas said the Attorney-General misinterpreted the Klobucar case.
Klobucar was charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest after a scuffle outside Cube nightclub in Civic in 2010.
The accused man argued he was going to the aid of a friend, who he believed had been knocked unconscious by another person.
But the veteran advocate argued police had not explored all alternatives to arresting Klobucar, and Magistrate Beth Campbell ruled the apprehension unlawful.
Mr Pappas said Mr Corbell's summary was ''inaccurate and misleadingly slanted''.
.gif)
