Prosecution Statistics for 2025–2026

During 2025-26 financial year, we received 2583 new referrals from 49 referring agencies, this includes 39 Commonwealth investigative agencies and 10 state and territory agencies.

The following tables set out details of prosecutions we conducted in 2025-2026.

The following tables provide statistics covering relevant legislation and referring agencies in relation to matters dealt with in 2025-26.

* “Defendants dealt with” includes not only convictions and findings of guilt but also:

• Matters resulting in acquittals.
• Prosecutions that are discontinued in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth based on evidentiary or public interest considerations.
• Discontinuances as part of a plea negotiation.
• When a matter scheduled for trial resolves into a guilty plea.
• When there is a hung jury.
• When the defendant has absconded and a warrant has been issued.
• Determinations that a defendant is unfit to be tried.
• Matters where a charge is issued but is unable to be served. 

It does not include: 

• Matters where the CDPP has provided pre-brief advice to an investigative agency.
• Brief assessments that do not proceed to prosecution, whether on evidentiary or public interest grounds.
• Breach proceedings.
• Matters determined on appeal.

* While the majority of CDPP’s prosecutions are offences against Commonwealth legislation, they are sometimes accompanied by state and territory offences.

Prosecution appeals against sentence

Director’s appeals against sentence play an important role in providing an effective prosecution service. They contribute to maintaining public confidence in the justice system by seeking review of sentences that reveal error or are considered to be outside the range of applicable sentencing standards. 

The Prosecution Policy provides that the Director’s right to appeal against sentence should be exercised with appropriate restraint. Factors which may be considered when deciding to appeal include whether:

• the sentence is manifestly inadequate
• the sentence reveals an inconsistency in sentencing standards
• the sentence proceeded on the basis of a material error of law or fact requiring appellate correction
• the sentence is substantially and unnecessarily inconsistent with other relevant sentences
• an appeal to a Court of Appeal would enable the court to lay down some general principles for the governance and guidance of sentencing courts
• an appeal will enable the court to establish and maintain adequate standards of punishment for crime
• an appeal will ensure, so far as the subject matter permits, uniformity in sentencing
• an appeal will enable an appellate court to correct an error of legal principle.

In addition to the above considerations, the CDPP only institutes appeal proceedings when there are reasonable prospects of success.

In 2025–26, the Director filed 5 appeals against sentence, 2 of which (40%) were upheld.

In 2 of the 3 appeals dismissed, the Courts held that the sentence imposed at first instance were manifestly inadequate, but the Courts exercised their residual discretion not to intervene in the particular circumstances of those appeal.