By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
Toby Weekes, Jackson Chaker and a number of other individuals had been engaged in an unlawful commercial cannabis enterprise in regional communities in central west New South Wales over 2021 through to 2022. And after the operation was closed down, Weekes was charged with four counts of supplying a prohibited drug, which involved four separate scenarios.
The first scenario involved Weekes arranging for two co-offenders, once in August 2021 and again in November 2021, to pick up cannabis supplied by Chaker at certain locations. The first exchanges involved 10.64 kilograms of cannabis, the second saw 9 kilograms handed over. And the initial exchange led to the arrest of the individual picking up the more than 10 kilogram drop from Chaker.
The second and third sequences involved another two sets of cannabis pickups in the months of December 2021 and again in February 2022, which were facilitated by Weekes and saw co-offenders picking up 9 kilograms of cannabis from Chaker. However, prior to the second drop in early 2022, police pulled over Chaker and found him in possession of the cannabis and some cocaine as well.
The final scenario involved NSW police also finding the cocaine, which amounted to 26.5 kilograms of the drug, in the possession of Chaker, when they intercepted him on the way to the cannabis drop. And at trial, NSW District Court Judge Penny Musgrave accepted that the amount of cocaine found on Chaker was, ultimately, for the personal use of Weekes.
Weekes was found to be in charge of the financial aspects of the enterprise at trial, as he provided significant amounts of money to couriers. The offender was further understood to play the senior role in the criminal enterprise, and from the aspect of the purchasers of illicit cannabis in regional central west NSW, Weekes formed a “critical link” in the operation.
Tried for drug supply
Weekes subsequently pleaded guilty to four counts of supply an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, contrary to subsection 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (DMT Act). Three of these counts were for cannabis supply and the other captured the cocaine.
Indictable supply in NSW carries a fine of up to $22,000 and/or up to 10 years imprisonment for cannabis supply or the 15 years, which applies for any other drug.
Drug offences in NSW provide lesser maximum penalties for cannabis offences in comparison with all other offences involving non-cannabis drugs, as the law reflects the understanding that cannabis is less harmful than other illicit substances.
Schedule 1 of the DMT Act contains a table which lists the various categories of drug weight in NSW. These involve small, traffickable, indictable, commercial and large commercial quantities. So, depending on the quantity of a drug that is seized, the steeper the criminal penalties become.
According to the Schedule 1 table, an indictable quantity of cocaine is at least 5 kilograms, whilst an indictable amount of cannabis is at least 1 kilogram.
The court heard that Weekes had no prior criminal record, he has Crohn’s disease, and that he’d been diagnosed with substance use disorder. Further Judge Musgrave found that there was “some hope” that Weekes would not reoffend, and he’d also provided the court with a letter expressing his remorse.
Weekes was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months prison time, with non-parole set at 2 years and 2 months. This sentence reflected a 25 percent, discount due to the utilitarian value of the offender’s early guilty pleas.
Disparity not present
Weekes appealed his sentence to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) on 23 February 2026. He did so based on five grounds. These included that the sentence was manifestly excessive and in comparison, with Chaker’s sentence, Weekes’ was too harsh.
The inmate further claimed that his non-parole period was manifestly excessive, that the sentencing judge had been in error in finding Chaker’s offending less serious than his, and that Crohn’s disease would be a difficult disease to cope with in gaol, and this had not been addressed at trial.
The suggested differences in sentences handed down to Weekes and Chaker were of concern, when the legal principle of parity was raised. Parity requires that like cases be treated alike, and different cases be treated differently. The principle should avoid substantial disparity in the sentences of co-offenders involved in the same criminal activity, when they have similar subjective circumstances.
Chaker was sentenced in respect of three counts of supplying an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug. One of these counts involved the supply of methamphetamine, whilst the second counts captured the cannabis supply offences involved in Weekes’ first sequence of offences, and the final count involved the cocaine for Weekes’ use found at the time of Chaker’s arrest.
The first sequence in Weekes’ list involved 19.64 kilograms of cannabis. But when it came to sentencing, it appears that the judge sentenced Chaker only in regard to the 10.64 kilograms of cannabis successfully supplied and not the extra 9 kilograms that were seized by NSW police, when they arrested the person receiving the drugs. And if this was in error, it was not discernible.
This led NSWCCA Justice James Emmett to note that Chaker had pleaded guilty to supply of 19.64 kilograms of cannabis, yet he was only convicted in relation to 10.64 kilograms, and therefore, disparity between his and Weekes’ sentences did appear to be possible. His Honour too explained that this appeal reveals the difficulty that can arise when sentencing co-offenders separately.
Justice Emmett raised Weekes’ claim that he shouldn’t have a “materially longer sentence” than Chaker, “should not be accepted”, because, as the trial judge had explained, the facts were exceedingly different in both cases, and Weekes was being tried in the NSW District Court, while Chaker was tried in the Local Court. So, the difficulty of establishing parity was apparent at trial.
His Honour further noted that Judge Musgrave had pointed to Weekes’ position in the enterprise as being “a senior and extensive role”, which saw him organising Chaker’s involvement and that of others. Indeed, Chaker’s agreed facts show that his role was less significant. So, the primary judge’s sentence didn’t display a disparity, and the two parity related grounds were not made out.
In turning to Weekes’ ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive, Justice Emmett found the sentences for cannabis were not excessive, however the 9 month sentence he received solely for the cocaine was excessive. Prior to discounting the individual cocaine sentence was 12 months, and this was too long, when taking into account that the cocaine was for his personal use.
This meant that the ground had been made out, and Weekes needed to be resentenced. Therefore, the ground inferring a manifestly excessive non-parole period did not have to be considered. And as for the ground relating to Crohn’s disease, it was found to have been problematic whilst Weekes has been in prison, so his disease should be factored into his new sentence.
Appeal established – resentencing necessary
Justice Emmett handed down new sentences for each sequence, and in terms of the cocaine conviction, that was dropped to 6 months pre-discount and 4 months and 15 days after the discount was applied. His Honour also found ‘special circumstances’ due to Weekes’ disease.
Section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides that a parole period must not exceed a third of the overall time an offender has been sentenced to, unless special circumstances have been found, which is the case here. A finding of special circumstances indicates that the defendant would benefit from longer non-parole, or period of supervision in the community.
“I am not persuaded the non-parole period should be significantly less than 60 percent of the head sentence,” Justice Emmett explained on resentencing. “I propose to fix a non-parole period which is slightly less than 60 percent of the head sentence.”
On 27 February 2026, his Honour then resentenced Weekes to 3 years imprisonment, with non-parole set at 21 months. And his presiding colleagues on the bench, NSWCCA Justices Peter Hamill and Sarah McNaughton, agreed with his findings.
