Arthur Hoyle, who has continued to protest his innocence despite appeal avenues failing, is serving a four year jail sentence, with two-and-a-half years non-parole, for the offences he committed while teaching business law at the University of Canberra in 2015.

A jury found he had indecently touched or tried to kiss several international students, showed one a pornographic PowerPoint slide, and raped a woman in his office while he was purporting to investigate possible plagiarism in the course.

He will be eligible for parole in October.

The 69-year-old detainee asked the ACT Supreme Court to review the prison's decision to rate him a medium to high risk of re-offending, in contempt of the sentencing judge's finding he was a low risk of re-offending, and using what he said was a flawed assessment tool.

He also argued it was unlawful for the prison authorities to force him to complete the adult sexual offenders program before being eligible for a transition to release program and before becoming eligible for parole.

But in a decision published last week, Justice David Mossop dismissed the former academic's claims, saying none of the grounds provided a basis for finding the prison authorities had acted in bad faith in the sense of a lack of any honest or genuine attempt to comply with its duties.

"On the contrary, the evidence discloses genuine attempts to provide for [Hoyle's] rehabilitation programs and opportunities consistent with the objects of the Corrections Management Act and the duties of the [prison] under that Act.

"[Hoyle] has not responded positively to the incentives for him to participate in the programs made available to him. I agree with the author of the [adult sex offender program] assessment report who said that the plaintiff 'exhibits a stubbornness and determination which is not necessarily in his best interests'."

Justice Mossop said there was no legal requirement imposed on detainees to complete certain programs, but rather that incentives within the Alexander Maconochie Centre were structured to encourage detainees to complete programs targeted at rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

"Necessarily involved in such a regime is the proposition that prisoners who choose not to participate in programs identified as appropriate in their case management plan will not gain access to other programs.

"That means that there is, in a practical sense, a requirement to complete some programs in order to gain the benefits of other programs which are perceived to be desirable.

"This practical reality does not involve compulsion in any legal sense. It merely reflects the reality that those prisoners who choose to cooperate with a system of incentives designed to promote their rehabilitation and reintegration will be rewarded by the system that has been put in place and those that choose to be uncooperative will not be rewarded. There is nothing unlawful about such an outcome."

The Sentence Administration Board is due to hold an inquiry into Hoyle's application for parole in early September.