The Northern Territory's attorney-general won't say whether a High Court ruling that restricts controversial paperless arrest laws will be binding for his government.
The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) hoped the High Court would invalidate the laws.
They had argued the laws gave police unprecedented, unnecessary powers that have been used disproportionately against Aboriginal people.
Introduced last year, the laws allow police to arrest and hold for four hours, or longer if intoxicated, a person they see or suspect of committing a minor crime, such as making a public disturbance or swearing.
Those crimes don't carry a jail term and people cannot access bail or a lawyer while detained.
The laws have been under scrutiny since a senior Warlpiri man, Kumanjayi Langdon, died in police custody in May three hours after being detained under the paperless arrest laws.
His funeral was held on Tuesday at his community of Yuendumu.
Attorney-General John Elferink said he anticipated the judgment in the government's favour.
"(The Court) supported the argument that these laws are not punitive in nature, what they do is merely affect the amount of paperwork which is done by a police officer," he told reporters on Wednesday.
"In Mr Langdon's case it's entirely likely, in fact it was probable he would have died anyhow, whether he would have died in a park or died in the custody of the police."
But the ruling did impose limitations on how the laws can be interpreted so that people can not be held longer than is reasonable while police decide what to do with them.
"Although it wasn't the knockout blow we were hoping for, this decision has seriously curtailed the application of those laws," said Ruth Barson, senior lawyer at the HRLC.
Under the High Court's interpretation of the arrest powers, Mr Langdon's detention would have been unlawful, she said.
When asked whether the findings of the High Court would be binding upon the NT, Mr Elferink declined to comment, and said he had not read the complete judgment.
"I'm not going to comment, not even sure I understand what you're driving at with the question," he said.
