← Resource library · Return to the report

JBD information request to MoJ 12 January 2026

Document type
Issued request
Issued by
Justice by Design
JBD internal filing reference
FOI_1D

Open or download the complete original

Ministry of Justice design and implementation

Document text

The complete original retains the page layout and any redactions.

PDF page 1

Open this original page

 Discrimination By Design FOI_1D 
 
12 January 2026 
By Email 
Dear MoJ FoI Team 
This request is made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 
It forms part of an ongoing, transparent research programme examining the regulatory, criminal-
law, equality, and real-world impacts of the framework governing cannabis-based products for 
medicinal use (CBPMs). The programme builds on material previously submitted to the Advisory 
Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) Call for Evidence on CBPMs, which closed on 17 
October 2025, and on subsequent analytical updates and correspondence provided to the 
ACMD as the evidence base has continued to develop. 
This request relies on Annex A (Publicly Available Documentary Chronology, A1–A15) as the 
complete publicly available factual record evidencing the commissioning of advice, ministerial 
responses, parliamentary statements, guidance, and statutory instruments relevant to the 
Misuse of Drugs (Amendments) (Cannabis and Licence Fees) Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/1055). 
It also draws on Annex B (Legal Comparators) and Annex C (Comparative Legislative 
Framework) as contextual analysis. Annex B sets out orthodox comparators for criminal-law 
signalling, safeguards and proportionality in prescribed-medicine contexts, and Annex C 
provides cross-framework comparison of exemption-withdrawal versus primary-offence 
models, proportionality norms, patient-facing criminal signalling, and equality / Public Sector 
Equality Duty (PSED) comparators. 
This is a new request. It is not a continuation, refinement, or narrowing of any previous request. 
Where any part of this request may engage section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, please 
provide a breakdown of search parameters sufficient to enable refinement, and state explicitly 
where no information is held, in accordance with section 16. 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
Pete Lindsay 
Pete.lindsay@justicebydesign.org.uk 
Justicebydesign.org.uk 
  

PDF page 2

Open this original page

 Discrimination By Design FOI_1D 
 
FOI 1D — MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 
Timeframe 
Unless otherwise specified, please provide recorded information created or held between 1 
January 2018 and 31 December 2020. 
This timeframe is intended to capture both the design and initial implementation phase of SI 
2018/1055, including any contemporaneous consideration or absence of post-implementation 
review, monitoring, or evaluation. 
If no recorded information is held in relation to any question, please state this explicitly. 
 
MoJ-1 — Awareness of criminal-law mechanism 
(Annex A: A7, A8, A9; Annex B – orthodox attachment of criminal liability to prescribed 
medicines; Annex C – exemption-withdrawal vs primary-offence model) 
Please provide recorded information evidencing the Ministry of Justice’s awareness that 
Regulation 16A(3) operates by withdrawal of a statutory exemption under the Misuse of Drugs 
Regulations 2001, thereby re-engaging offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for 
prescribed CBPM patients. 
 
MoJ-2 — Likelihood of investigation or prosecution 
(Annex A: A7, A8; Annex B – orthodox enforcement expectations and safeguards for prescribed 
patients; Annex C – proportionality and enforcement norms comparator) 
Please provide recorded information evidencing any assessment of the likelihood of criminal 
investigation or prosecution of patients prescribed CBPMs arising from non-compliance with 
Regulation 16A(3), including any advice provided to other Departments. 
 
MoJ-3 — Novel or atypical criminal-justice model 
(Annex A: A7, A14, A15; Annex B – orthodox criminal-justice models for controlled prescribed 
medicines; Annex C – novelty vs orthodox control models) 
Please provide recorded information evidencing any consideration of whether the CBPM 
regulatory framework constituted a novel or atypical criminal-justice approach, including the 
attachment of criminal liability to a subset of prescribed patients through exemption withdrawal 
rather than primary criminal prohibitions. 
 
  

PDF page 3

Open this original page

 Discrimination By Design FOI_1D 
 
MoJ-4 — Proportionality and foreseeability 
(Annex A: A7, A10, A11; Annex B – orthodox proportionality and foreseeability safeguards in 
criminal regulation; Annex C – proportionality safeguards comparator) 
Please provide recorded information evidencing any assessment of proportionality and 
foreseeability in relation to criminal liability arising from Regulation 16A(3), including whether 
impacts on prescribed CBPM patients were considered proportionate to regulatory objectives. 
 
MoJ-5 — Emergency and self-administration contexts 
(Annex A: A3, A7, A8; Annex B – orthodox treatment of emergency or necessity contexts in 
prescribed-medicine frameworks; Annex C – emergency self-administration vs criminal 
exposure comparator) 
Please provide recorded information evidencing any consideration of emergency or acute 
contexts in which patients prescribed CBPMs may reasonably self-administer medication to 
avoid escalation to professional medical intervention, and how criminal liability under 
Regulation 16A(3) was expected to operate in such contexts. 
If no such information is held, please state this explicitly. 
 
MoJ-6 — Equality Act 2010 considerations 
(Annex A: A7, A8, A9; Annex B – orthodox consideration of equality impacts where criminal 
liability affects prescribed patients; Annex C – equality / PSED comparator) 
Please provide recorded information evidencing any consideration of Equality Act 2010 duties in 
relation to prescribed CBPM patients, including whether the operation of Regulation 16A(3) was 
assessed for indirect discrimination risk. 
 
MoJ-7 — Post-implementation review 
(Annex A: A10–A13; Annex B – orthodox post-implementation review expectations in criminal-
justice regulation; Annex C – post-implementation safeguards comparator) 
Please provide recorded information relating to any post-implementation review, monitoring, or 
evaluation by the Ministry of Justice of criminal-justice impacts arising from SI 2018/1055. 
 
MoJ-8 — Section 12 safeguards 
(Annex A: A1–A15) 
If any part of this request engages section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, please provide 
a breakdown of search parameters sufficient to allow refinement and confirm explicitly which 
elements of information are not held.