The Northern Territory's alcohol protection order (APO) regime is under scrutiny in the Court of Appeal, with lawyers arguing the laws discriminate against Aboriginal people.

Key points: Appeal of APOs being fought on behalf of man who was homeless and an alcoholic when he stole $4 worth of food

Appeal of APOs being fought on behalf of man who was homeless and an alcoholic when he stole $4 worth of food Court of Appeal told police failed to properly exercise their discretion

Court of Appeal told police failed to properly exercise their discretion Three-day timeframe for reviewing APOs "extraordinary", court told

The appeal is being fought on behalf of Dennis Munkara, who was homeless and an alcoholic when he stole about $4 worth of food from a supermarket and was issued with the first of three APOs, according to his lawyers.

Mr Munkara's legal counsel, Ron Merkel QC, told the appeal court judges his client had breached the APOs at least 20 times.

Mr Merkel said Justice Stephen Southwood made an error when he dismissed a challenge to the scheme last year, filed by the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA), and found the laws were consistent with the Racial Discrimination Act.

He said the practical effect of the laws was discrimination.

"It is notorious and it is well known that the consumption of alcohol is a serious and endemic problem in some Aboriginal communities," he said.

"We say this is a shocking regime."

Police 'failed to properly exercise discretion'

Mr Merkel said statistics supported his argument, including the fact Indigenous people comprised 27 per cent of the Northern Territory's population but almost 90 per cent of APOs had been issued to Indigenous people.

Alcohol protection orders were introduced in 2013 to deter alcohol-related crime, according to the NT Government's explanatory statement on the laws.

It is a crime to breach an APO, which bans a person from possessing and drinking alcohol, or entering any licensed premises.

APOs can be given to anyone who is charged with an offence punishable by six months' imprisonment or more, if police believe they were affected by alcohol at the time.

Mr Merkel also told the Court of Appeal the police officers involved failed to properly exercise their discretion when issuing the APOs to Mr Munkara.

"It was obvious that police knew they were dealing with an alcoholic," he said.

Punishing vulnerable people 'not answer to addiction'

Human Rights Law Centre director of legal advocacy, Ruth Barson, is part of Mr Munkara's legal team and said his personal circumstances should have been considered.

"Criminalising and punishing vulnerable people is not the answer to alcohol addiction or related harm.

"All of the evidence shows us, doctors across Australia tell us, that the best way to address this issue is through a public health response," Ms Barson said.

Mr Merkel said a three-day timeframe for APO recipients to ask police to review the order was "extraordinary", given the linguistic challenges many Indigenous people face.

"This is a regime of some considerable complexity.

"It's really that aspect that's so harsh in this law.

"There have been very, very few reviews - it's easy to see why," he said.

The appeal is expected to run for two days, with legal argument on behalf of the police officers involved and the NT Attorney-General still to come.