Home Office IR2026/08630 internal review 20 July 2026

Authority case reference: IR2026/08630

Open or download the complete original

Home Office patient assessment and review

Document text

The complete original retains the page layout and any redactions.

PDF page 1

Open this original page

Knowledge & Information
Management Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Email:
foirequests@homeoffice.gov
.uk

Pete Lindsay
By email

20th July 2026

Dear Pete Lindsay,

Internal Review Ref: IR2026/08630
Original Freedom of Information Request Ref: FOI2026/06253

Thank you for your email of 19 June 2026 in which you asked for an internal review of the
response to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Your FOI request of 12
May asked for information about the basis for the recommendation to prohibit the smoking
of cannabis in a clinical context. A copy of your internal review request is included at
Annex A.

I have now completed the review and have assessed the substance of the response
provided to you. I can confirm that I was not involved in the initial decision.

Internal Review Outcome

As a result of this review, I find that the original response to your request was correct. Your
complaint is therefore not upheld and the reason for this is as follows.

I am satisfied that thorough searches were conducted by relevant teams and by individual
staff members who worked on the policy and that no information is held. Policy leads who
have moved to different Home Office teams and who worked on this policy development at
the time as well as the teams who responded to your previous FOIs were contacted as
part of this search.

For your information, the following search terms were used:

- Regulation 16A
- 16A(3)
- prescribed cannabis
- medicinal cannabis
- CBPM / CBPMs
- smoking cannabis
- smoked cannabis
- patient cohort
- impact assessment
- equality impact assessment / EIA
- Equality Act 2010
- section 149
- PSED (Public Sector Equality Duty)

PDF page 2

Open this original page

 
It is possible that the Department for Health and Social Care may hold the information you 
have requested. You may wish to submit an FOI request to them, and can do so here: 
Contact the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) - GOV.UK  
    
Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act  
 
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the 
Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision at:  
The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire 
SK9 5AF. Web: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/  
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
Information Rights Team

PDF page 3

Open this original page

Annex A – Internal Review Request – Received 19 June 2026

I request an internal review of the response provided to FOI2026/06253.

I am grateful for the Department's consideration of the request. However, I am not satisfied
that the response adequately explains how the conclusion was reached that the requested
information is not held.

Background

Annex A is my clarification request dated 2 March 2026 concerning governance
responsibility, patient communication and Public Sector Equality Duty allocation in relation
to SI 2018/1055.

Annex B is the Home Office response to that request (FOI2026/03126), which confirmed
that the Public Sector Equality Duty applied to the Home Office when SI 2018/1055 was
made.

Annex C is the Home Office response to FOI2026/06253, which is the subject of this
review.

Annex D is the ministerial submission entitled:

"Cannabis: Options on Definition of Cannabis Based Medicinal Products"

dated 13 September 2018 and disclosed by the Department in response to
FOI2026/03841.

Grounds for Review

FOI2026/06253 sought recorded information relating to:

1. identification and assessment of the patient cohort referred to in the disclosed
ministerial material;

2. consideration of foreseeable consequences for prescribed patients arising from
Regulation 16A(3), including circumstances in which a patient possessing a lawfully
prescribed cannabis-based product for medicinal use nevertheless administered that
product by smoking; and

3. discharge of responsibilities under section 149 Equality Act 2010 in relation to that
cohort and those consequences.

The response in Annex C states that the Department does not hold the requested
information.

However, Annex D appears to demonstrate that:

• an assessment existed that specialist clinicians prescribing cannabis for smoking would
be extremely unlikely;

• an assessment existed that circumstances in which cannabis could legitimately be
prescribed for smoking would be very narrow;

• Ministers were advised on the basis of those assessments;

PDF page 4

Open this original page

• the Department considered the possibility that patients in lawful possession of prescribed 
cannabis may nevertheless administer that cannabis by smoking;  
 
• the Department recommended a regulatory prohibition specifically directed at that 
anticipated behaviour; and  
 
• the Department developed a package of mitigations and communications relating to that 
behaviour.  
 
Given the existence of these assessments and considerations, I would be grateful if the 
review could specifically consider whether sufficient searches were undertaken to identify: 
 
(a) recorded information identifying the source of the assessments referred to above;  
 
(b) recorded information concerning foreseeable consequences for prescribed patients 
arising from Regulation 16A(3), including circumstances in which prescribed cannabis was 
nevertheless administered by smoking;  
 
(c) recorded information concerning consideration of the identified patient cohort for the 
purposes of section 149 Equality Act 2010; and  
 
(d) recorded information held elsewhere within the Department but not captured by the 
original searches.  
 
I would also be grateful if the review could clarify:  
 
1. which business areas, teams, directorates, shared drives, records systems and 
mailboxes were searched;  
 
2. the search terms used;  
 
3. whether any material was identified but considered outside scope;  
 
4. whether any material was identified but withheld under exemption rather than treated as 
not held; and  
 
5. whether the Department considers that responsibility for any of the matters described 
above lay with another public authority and, if so, which authority. 
 
I am not asking the Department to create information that does not exist.  
 
Rather, I am seeking clarification as to how the conclusion that the requested information 
is not held was reached in light of:  
 
• the assessments and recommendations contained within Annex D;  
 
• the Department's acknowledgement in Annex B that the Public Sector Equality Duty 
applied to the making of SI 2018/1055; and  
 
• the apparent existence of recorded assessments concerning a patient cohort expected to 
be affected by the proposed restriction.  
 
I would therefore be grateful if the Department would undertake an internal review of the 
handling of FOI2026/06253.