Disputed Facts Hearings (ACT)

By James Stevens, Director and Solicitor, Go To Court Lawyers. Last reviewed 20 April 2026.

When a person is charged with a criminal offence, they may plead guilty or contest the charge. Usually, when a person contests a criminal matter, they are denying responsibility for the offence. However, a criminal matter may also be contested because the ‘facts’ are disputed. This page deals with disputed facts hearings in the ACT.

Police summary of facts

When a person is charged with one or more criminal offences, they are presented with a charge sheet as well as a police summary of facts. This summary is a statement of what the police say happened.

In some cases, the accused will agree with everything in the police summary of facts. In other cases, they will dispute the alleged facts in their entirely. If the accused admits responsibility for the offence, but disagrees with some of the allegations, the matter may need to proceed to a disputed facts hearing.

At a disputed facts hearing, the accused will plead guilty to the offence and then the court will hear evidence about what occurred. The court will make findings as to which allegations have been proven and which have not, and then impose a sentence.  

Negotiations as to the facts

In some cases, a disagreement about facts may be able to be resolved through negotiations between the parties. Whether this is possible will depend on a number of factors including the extent of the divergence between the two versions of the event, whether the difference in the accounts is likely to affect the sentence handed down, and the strength of the evidence supporting the prosecution case.

When deciding whether to agree to amend the summary of facts, the Department of Public Prosecutions will consider the following:

• Whether the witnesses appear  honest and reliable
• Whether any witnesses appear to be exaggerating or defective in their memory
• Whether witnesses have a motive for being less than candid
• Whether witnesses’ credibility could be attacked
• Whether the prosecution is in the public interest
• Whether the defendant is likely to be found guilty

What happens in a disputed facts hearing?

A disputed facts hearing runs in much the same way as any other contested criminal hearing. However, in a contested facts hearing the evidence may be limited to the areas that are in dispute between the parties.

The prosecution calls witnesses first and the defence then has the opportunity to cross-examine them. The defence will then call witnesses, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to cross-examine them.

Each party will then make submissions as to the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence and the court will make findings as to which facts have been proven. The court may find that allegations have not been proven if there is reason to think that evidence that has been given:

• was not complete
• was not truthful
• was given by a witness whose memory was impaired – for example, by alcohol or drugs
• contains inconsistencies

Plea of guilty

A person who contests a matter by running a disputed facts hearing will be given the full benefit of the sentencing discount for a guilty plea if the court finds wholly in the accused’s favour.

If the court does not find wholly in the accused’s favour, it will assess whether to extend the sentencing discount to the accused based on whether they had a valid reason for challenging the police summary of facts.  

The sentencing discount is based on recognising that a defence has taken responsibility for their actions be admitting the offence, and saved the court time and resources by avoiding the need to run a contested hearing. For this reason, if a disputed facts hearing is run and the court considers there was no need for it, it will not extend the accused the sentencing discount.  

If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.