Convicted murderer and rapist Adrian Bayley was denied continued legal aid because there was little prospect he would ever be paroled, the Supreme Court has heard.

Bayley, 44, is serving a life sentence for the rape and murder of ABC employee Jill Meagher in 2012.

Earlier this year he was convicted of three additional rapes and sentenced to a total of 18 years in jail.

Under Victorian law a life sentence cannot be increased, so only his non-parole period was altered, from 35 to 43 years.

The former pastry chef wanted Victorian Legal Aid (VLA) to fund his appeal against two of the convictions but it refused.

He has now mounted a challenge in the Supreme Court against that decision.

Legal Aid's independent reviewer in August backed the decision to refuse him assistance, as did the Victorian Attorney-General.

Bayley is using a pro-bono legal team lead by Saul Holt, a former chief counsel for VLA, who argued denying legal assistance to Bayley was a breach of the Charter of Human Rights.

That has been denied by VLA's legal team and the solicitor-general representing the Victorian Attorney-General, who are both defending the appeal.

"Denial of legal aid does not lead to the loss of the right of review or the failure of review," solicitor-general Richard Niall told the court.

"It may have no consequences. On the facts [of this case] it does have no consequence.

"An unrepresented person can succeed in the process."

Bayley unlikely to get parole, VLA says

Justice Kevin Bell heard that in making its decision, Legal Aid had determined that an appeal could have led to a reduced non-parole period.

But it had been concluded that "the significance of the reduction ... is almost non-existent".

Fiona McLeod, SC, for Legal Aid, said there was discussion by the organisation that there was "very little prospect he'll be released on parole".

"I struggle with how that assessment was made," Justice Kevin Bell told the court, and "whether as a matter of law, such a conclusion is available".

Mr Holt argued that it was "speculative what a parole board might be doing in 35 to 45 years".

He told the court the additional non-parole period added 10 years to Bayley's time out of the community because the two years he had already served was not counted.

Instead of being eligible for release at age 76, he will not be released until he is 86.

"[That's the difference] at that end of a person's life, [between] any hope of a person having any time in the community ... or none at all," Mr Holt said.

"[That] hope should not be extinguished."

Mr Holt said on those grounds, VLA should have supported the appeal.

"The appeal is likely to succeed ... [and the] convictions quashed," Mr Holt told the court.

"It would have the effect of reducing the non-parole period."

Mr Holt was also critical of one of the reasons cited in internal VLA documents, that took into account the public interest in the case and concerns about "public confidence in the stewardship" of VLA.

"It's an irrelevant consideration," he said.

Bayley 'entitled to public assistance': Lawyer

Mr Holt argued his client was entitled to public assistance because as a prisoner, Bayley could not afford his own representation.

He also said it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Justice Kevin Bell heard arguments about the roles and responsibilities of Victorian Legal Aid, its internal workings, priorities and cost considerations.

There was also a focus on the role of the independent reviewer.

Lawyers for Legal Aid said it was not obligated to fund all actions.

Fiona McLeod, SC, told the court Legal Aid's legislation meant the organisation had to provide legal assistance in an "effective, efficient and economic matter ... that dispels fear and distrust", she said.

Justice Bell has reserved his decision.