NPCC FOI 2802 2026 reply 31 March 2026
- Authority case reference
- 2802/2026
Open or download the complete original
Operational handling and outcomes
- CPS 14145 response 17 April 2026
- CPS 14391 response printed 10 July 2026
- College of Policing FOIA-2026-094 response 9 July 2026
- MoJ and HMPPS 260305036 response 18 March 2026
- MoJ and HMCTS 260619034 response 16 July 2026
- NPCC FOI 2802 2026 reply 31 March 2026
Document text
The complete original retains the page layout and any redactions.
PDF page 1
c/o PO BOX 481 Fareham Hampshire PO14 9FS Tel: 02380 478922 Email: npcc.foi.request@npfdu.police.uk 31/03/2026 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NUMBER: 2802/2026 Thank you for your request for information regarding cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPMs), which has now been considered. Applicant Question: It is submitted as 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 concerns recorded national coordination, guidance endorsement, and oversight functions undertaken by NPCC in relation to operational interactions with individuals asserting lawful prescription of CBPMs. For clarity: This request concerns operational interactions with individuals asserting lawful prescription of CBPMs. If CBPMs are addressed solely within general Schedule 2 controlled-drug frameworks with no CBPM-specific differentiation, please confirm this explicitly and identify the written guidance, doctrine, or policy relied upon in those circumstances. • It does not concern operational decisions of individual police forces. • No statistical or case-level material is requested. • This request concerns formally issued or formally endorsed written guidance only. • It does not extend to draft materials or informal communications. • If no information is held in relation to any item below, please confirm this explicitly. 1. National Guidance In relation to national coordination, please provide any formally issued or endorsed written guidance concerning operational interactions with prescribed CBPMs.
PDF page 2
2. Operational Expectations In relation to nationally communicated expectations, please provide any written guidance addressing arrest, seizure, or verification expectations communicated to police forces in such circumstances. 3. Training and Awareness Expectations In relation to national coordination functions, please provide any written material addressing training or awareness expectations for officers concerning prescribed CBPMs. 4. Inter-Agency Coordination In relation to cross-agency operational coordination, please provide any written material addressing coordination between policing and prosecutorial bodies in such matters. 5. Governance In relation to governance arrangements, please provide recorded information setting out ownership and review mechanisms for CBPM-related guidance within NPCC structures. NPCC Response: 1. National Guidance The NPCC does hold recorded information captured by part 1 of your request. This information is engages S21 Information reasonably accessible by other means. In relation to national coordination, formally issued guidance concerning police interaction with prescribed CBPMs has been developed and published. This guidance was produced by the Association of Police Controlled Drug Liaison Officers in conjunction with the NPCC Drugs Portfolio and published via the College of Policing in February 2025. The document provides practical and proportionate advice to frontline officers and staff. Its purpose is to: • Provide clear, common-sense guidance on policing issues relating to medicinal cannabis • Ensure that patients lawfully prescribed medicinal cannabis are able to possess it without undue hindrance • Promote cooperation and reduce potential conflict between police and prescribed patients In wishing to assist you, outside of the Act, I have provided a direct web-link to where this information is published here. 2. Operational Expectations
PDF page 3
The NPCC does hold recorded information captured by part 2 of your request. In relation to arrest, seizure, and verification expectations, forces are directed to the national guidance referenced above. The guidance includes operational advice covering: • Licensed and unlicensed CBPMs • Legal framework and powers • Practical considerations for officers and staff when encountering individuals in possession of CBPMs 3. Training & Awareness Expectations The NPCC does not hold recorded information captured by part 3 of your request. No additional national training products have been issued beyond the published guidance. The College of Policing guidance should therefore be regarded as the primary reference document. The guidance also covers: • Definition and overview of CBPMs • Legislative context • Implications for frontline officers and staff • Use of Cancards • Smoking of medicinal cannabis • Drug driving considerations Sources of further advice and support 4. Interagency Coordination The NPCC does not hold recorded information captured by part 4 of your request. In relation to coordination between policing and prosecutorial bodies, no separate written material is currently held beyond the national guidance referenced above. The guidance has been published via the College of Policing and is therefore accessible to partner agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service. It may already have been shared with them; however, this has not been formally confirmed. 5. Governance Arrangements The NPCC does not hold recorded information captured by your request. The NPCC does not hold a record which sets out ownership and review mechanisms for CBPM-related guidance specifically within NPCC structures. This is currently being established.
PDF page 4
The guidance was published in February 2025 under the NPCC Drugs Portfolio. As portfolio leadership has recently changed, review arrangements and timelines have not yet been formally set, but the document will be subject to future review. Yours sincerely Freedom of Information Officer & Decision Maker www.npcc.police.uk COMPLAINT RIGHTS Internal Review Any request for an internal review will be acknowledged and responded to, based on the specific wording of your initial request only. We ask that any rationale to request an internal review, does not include any requests for new information and ask that these be submitted by separate email. We will acknowledge as a new request and may aggregate to your initial request in compliance with the legislation. If you are dissatisfied with the respo nse you have been provided with in compliance with the Freedom of Information legislation, you can lodge a complaint with NPCC to have the decision reviewed within 40 working days of the date of this response. The handling of your request will be looked at by someone independent of the original decision and a fresh response provided. It would be helpful, if requesting a review, for you to articulate in detail the reasons you are not satisfied with this reply. If you would like to request a review, please write or send an email to NPCC Freedom of Information, c/o PO Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS.
PDF page 5
Annex A Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the NPCC, when refusing to provide information by way of exemption in question and (c) states why the exemption applies. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a refusal notice to those aspects of your request. The legislation: Section 21 Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means (1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)— a) information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment, and • b) information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the applicant if it is information which the public authority or any other person is obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request, whether free of charge or on payment. S21 is an absolute exemption and there is no requirement to conduct a public interest test. Legislation – Section 16 (1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.