An agreed statement of facts is a formal written document in which the prosecution and defence set out the facts they both accept as true. Once signed, neither side can depart from those facts before the sentencing judge or magistrate. Courts across Australia rely on agreed facts to sentence efficiently and consistently, particularly after a guilty plea.
What an agreed statement of facts actually contains
The document typically covers who did what, where, when, and to whom. It describes the conduct that underlies the charges without editorialising. It does not express legal conclusions. A statement of facts might confirm the amount of money taken in a fraud matter, the circumstances of physical contact in an assault, or the quantity and type of drugs found in a trafficking case.
Both lawyers draft the statement together. The prosecution prepares a first version, the defence reviews it, and negotiations produce a final agreed text. Disputed facts are left out entirely. Only what both sides accept appears in the document.
Getting the content right is critical. A single phrase that overstates the defendant's role can push a sentence in a harsher direction than the evidence truly warrants.
When an agreed statement of facts is used
Agreed facts are most common after a guilty plea. Once a defendant has indicated they will plead guilty, one of the first tasks for the lawyers is agreeing on the factual basis on which the court will sentence. A judge can only sentence on the facts placed before them. If those facts are generous to the prosecution but the defendant said nothing, the sentence reflects the prosecution's version.
Agreed facts also arise before and during trial to narrow the issues the jury must decide. Parties might agree that a document is genuine, that a substance was what police say it was, or that certain events occurred on a particular date. This removes those issues from contest and focuses the trial on what is actually in dispute.
What happens if the facts cannot be agreed
Sometimes the parties cannot reach agreement on the factual basis for sentencing. The prosecution might want the judge to sentence on a more serious version of events than the defendant accepts. In that situation, the court holds a Newton hearing, which is a mini-trial on the disputed facts alone. The judge hears evidence and decides which version to accept. Newton hearings cost time and carry risk for both sides: a defendant who loses one is sentenced on the prosecution's account, and may lose some of the discount they would have earned from the plea.
Defence lawyers try to avoid Newton hearings where possible. A carefully negotiated agreed statement of facts is almost always a better outcome than asking a judge to resolve contested ground.
The strategic importance of negotiating the facts
Defendants and their lawyers sometimes underestimate how much the agreed statement shapes the sentence. Judges take the agreed facts as given. They do not look behind them. A fact that characterises the offending as opportunistic rather than planned, or as involving a small quantity rather than a larger one, can shift the sentence significantly.
The timing matters too. An agreed statement filed early, alongside a prompt sentencing hearing, demonstrates cooperation and can support a larger discount for the guilty plea. Courts tend to reward defendants who resolve their matters efficiently without compelling victims or witnesses to attend unnecessarily.
Defence lawyers should read every line of the prosecution's draft with care. Characterisations that sound neutral can carry real weight. Words like "persistent", "calculated", or "targeted" belong in dispute. Words like "single incident" or "unplanned" belong in the defendant's interest.
Format and process in practice
Courts in New South Wales expect the agreed statement to be signed by both the prosecutor and the defence practitioner, or at minimum formally endorsed by both. It is then tendered to the judge at the sentencing hearing as an exhibit. The judge reads it before hearing submissions on penalty.
In Local Court matters, agreed facts are often shorter and more informal. In the District Court and Supreme Court, particularly for serious indictable offences, agreed statements can run to several pages and be accompanied by agreed annexures including police photographs, certificates of analysis, or business records. The bulk pleading of multiple charges often requires a single agreed statement that addresses each count separately, which adds complexity.
Common mistakes defendants make
The most frequent mistake is assuming the prosecution's draft is fixed. It isn't. Defence lawyers can and should push back on characterisations that overstate seriousness, omit mitigating context, or misrepresent the defendant's role relative to co-offenders. Some defendants are so relieved to have resolved their matter that they agree to a statement without scrutinising it. That can cost them months.
A second mistake is failing to insist that mitigating context be included. An agreed statement is not just a record of wrongdoing. It can also record that the defendant cooperated with police, returned property, had no prior criminal history, or acted under duress. Prosecutors are not always eager to include that material, but defence lawyers are entitled to negotiate for it.
Ann Valos Criminal Law's approach to agreed facts
Ann Valos Criminal Law reviews every agreed statement of facts line by line before any document is signed. Ann Valos Criminal Law negotiates directly with prosecutors to ensure the factual basis for sentencing reflects the true circumstances of the offending, not the strongest version available to the Crown. With over 15 years of experience in criminal law and a team of accredited specialists, Ann Valos Criminal Law brings the preparation and advocacy that this stage of proceedings demands.
If you are facing criminal charges and need advice on how your matter will be presented to a court, contact Ann Valos Criminal Law to discuss your options.