DPP made 'serious mistake' handling paedophile coach case: A-G

"It does appear that there was a serious mistake made by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and [the victims] were given poor advice," Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury told ABC Radio on Wednesday.

Child abuser Stephen Mitchell successfully appealed a recent jail sentence, which was handed down using an incorrect maximum penalty for charges reportedly laid as part of a plea deal.

The paedophile is now likely to see his 13-year-and-five-month jail sentence reduced when a new sentencing hearing takes place in August.

The Holt man abused his position of power and preyed on his victims between 1994 and 2008, committing sexual offences against them in the ACT, NSW and overseas.

Some of Mitchell's six victims have publicly expressed their frustration at being told the sex predator pleaded guilty to certain charges which would be prosecuted using modern 25-year maximum penalties.

Those same charges will now be re-sentenced on a seven-year maximum penalty, based on legislation relevant to when the crimes were committed.

"I met with them just last week and they explained this to me. They're deeply upset and I can absolutely understand why," Mr Rattenbury said on Wednesday.

The government has previously said the sentencing mistake was not a "glitch in the law" but simply reflected that no one can be retrospectively sentenced for crimes.

Asked what he would do about a law described by some as flawed, Mr Rattenbury said: "I have undertaken that the government will review the legislation to see if there are any ways in which the legislation can be clarified."

"I've also undertaken that I will be writing to the incoming director of public prosecutions to ask questions about what follow-up is being done to ensure these sorts of mistakes are not systemic issues.

Mr Rattenbury did not commit to an inquiry into the DPP's handling of the case after The Australian published stories claiming the office was too busy with Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution to pay Mitchell's proper attention.

"We need to recognise that The Australian newspaper is actively campaigning on this issue and pose a lot of questions in this matter, including contradictory questions," the Attorney-General said.

"They are very critical of me for previously seeking to raise matters with the DPP but they are also demanding that I raise this with the DPP."

On Thursday, territory Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee was also asked about the case.

"There is no doubt that there was a serious mistake that has led to a very, very distressing outcome," she said.

"When you've got unanswered questions as there are here, then I don't see any reason why an inquiry shouldn't be held into it."

Ms Lee said she was concerned about Mitchell's victims feeling like they were not seen as a priority during Mr Lehrmann's case.

"The question then becomes, of course, if it's happened to this case, what about the other cases that were going through at the same time?" she said.

MORE COURT AND CRIME NEWS:

"And I think that's incredibly distressing, not only for the victim-survivors who are involved personally, but also the signal that it sends to the community about the confidence and faith that they can have in the criminal justice system."

Mitchell will be resentenced on the charge of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person, now known as persistent sexual abuse of a child.

Earlier this month, Elizabeth Hall, one of Mitchell's victims, described the legislation relevant to the historical charge as: "A known flaw in the child sexual abuse laws."

The charge is intended to capture sexual abuses committed over a protracted period of time.

Victim Odette Visser said at the time: "That's supposed to help victims and judges look at the entirety so they can sentence properly and appropriately."

However, Ms Visser said the rolled up charge, when applied to historical offences, offered a severely underwhelming maximum penalty which came as a shock to the victims when the appeal was revealed.

"So, it's a law that is functioning in a way it wasn't intended," she said.

The DPP has been contacted for comment.