Medical cannabis clinics

​​​​Request ​767263926

I am making this request under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

I am seeking information about how private medical cannabis clinics operating in Jersey are overseen, and what guidance has been issued in relation to the prescribing and monitoring of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs). 

Please provide:

1. Copies of any policies, guidance notes, standard operating procedures or similar documents, in force at any time since 1 January 2020, which relate to:

a) the regulation, oversight or monitoring of private medical cannabis clinics in Jersey, and

b) the prescribing and monitoring of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) by such clinics.

2. Copies of any policies or guidance, in force at any time since 1 January 2020, which address:

a) the circumstances in which private medical cannabis clinics should or should not provide letters or reports for patients involved in legal or tribunal proceedings, and

b) expectations on continuity of care and discharge of patients who are receiving CBMPs from private clinics.

3. Copies of any contracts, memoranda of understanding or other agreements between the Government of Jersey (including Health and Community Services / Health and Care Jersey) and [redacted] concerning the operation of [redacted] or the prescribing of CBMPs in Jersey.

4. Any internal reports, briefing papers or emails created since 1 January 2020 which discuss:

a) whether and how private medical cannabis clinics should be regulated in Jersey, and/or

b) any risks identified in relation to patient safety, continuity of care or the provision of medical evidence by such clinics.

Response

1

Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) does not hold any policies, guidance notes, standard operating procedures or similar documents relating to the regulation, oversight or monitoring of private medical cannabis clinics in Jersey.

As detailed in a Freedom of Information response published to www.gov.je in November 2023, private medical cannabis clinics in Jersey are not subject to a specific statutory regulatory or inspection regime in relation to the prescribing of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBPMs). Responsibility for clinical practice rests with individual clinicians, and prescribers must act in accordance with the relevant laws and associated orders, and are expected to abide by their professional body’s recommendations (eg. GMC Good Practice)

https://www.gov.je/government/freedomofinformation/pages/foi.aspx?ReportID=6968​

HCJ does not hold locally issued policies or guidance specifically governing the prescribing or monitoring of CBPMs by private medical cannabis clinics.

Prescribers are required to act in accordance with:

▪ The Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 and associated Orders

▪ The Medicines (Jersey) Law 1995 and associated Orders

▪ The standards and guidance of their relevant professional regulator (for example, General Medical Council and their guidance on CBPMs).

Information for doctors on canaabis-based-products for medicinal use (CBPMs( (gmc-uk.org)​

HCJ has previously published information explaining the responsibilities of registered pharmacies in Jersey, including statutory reporting requirements for privately dispensed controlled drugs to the Chief Pharmacist, as well as the findings of dispensing audit work:

Medicinal Cannabis Dispensing Audit Report

Guidance from Public Health on unlicensed CBPMS is available at the following link:

Unlicensed Cannabis Based Medicinal Products (CBPMs)​

2

HCJ does not hold any policies or guidance addressing the circumstances in which private medical cannabis clinics should or should not provide letters or reports for patients involved in legal or tribunal proceedings, nor any specific policies or guidance addressing expectations on continuity of care or discharge arrangements for patients receiving CBPMs from private medical cannabis clinics.

These matters fall within the scope of individual clinicians’ professional and ethical obligations, and the standards and guidance of their relevant professional regulatory bodies.

Expectations regarding continuity of care are governed by:

▪ Professional regulatory standards

▪ General clinical governance principles

▪ Arrangements between the treating clinician and the patient.

3

HCJ holds no contracts, Memoranda of Understanding, or other formal agreements with any private medical cannabis clinic relating to the operation of private clinics or the prescribing of cannabis-based medicinal products in Jersey.

4

Relevant information to address this query and correspondence identified for the period from 01 January 2022 to 01 April 2025 has been provided in a Freedom of Information response published to www.gov.je in July 2025:

gov.je/government/freedomofinformation/pages/foi.aspx?ReportID=8739

As noted in the response referenced and linked above, briefing papers and States Assembly discussions surrounding cannabis prescribing, policy and regulatory frameworks can be reviewed on the States Assembly website, which includes a search tool to assist in identifying relevant responses and filtering by timeframe:

States Assembly | Home

Where information is available elsewhere, Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Further searches were conducted to identify any internal reports or communications in scope of this request for the remaining period, from 01 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, and from April 2025 to receipt of this Freedom of Information request.

Information in scope of this request has been prepared for disclosure. Duplicates, and emails or attachments that are entirely exempt have been removed, and documents have been redacted in consideration of Freedom of Information legislation. Redactions have been colour coded for ease of reference.

▪ Redactions have been applied to the personal information of individuals in consideration of Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. Redactions based on this exemption are shown in pale yellow. Names and email contact details of senior Government of Jersey employees and Ministers / Assistant Ministers are disclosed.

▪ Redactions in green denote information which has been determined as exempt from disclosure in accordance with Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 [Commercial interests].

▪ Information that is outside of the scope of this request has been redacted in grey.

[LINK Redacted pack]​

Articles applied

Article 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018​ would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest Test

HCJ has assessed whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the prejudice that would likely result by doing so. It is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency. However, having considered the public interest, HCJ has concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result.

Article 33 is a qualified exemption and, as such, Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) has conducted a public interest test as required by law.

When responding to requests of this nature, HCJ has to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would, or would be likely to, have upon the organisation and / or third parties.

HCJ has assessed whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the prejudice that would likely result by doing so.

It is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency, however, having considered the public interest, HCJ has concluded that the public interest in disclosing certain data is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result.

​Internal review request

The Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking information on oversight of private medicinal cannabis clinics operating in Jersey and any guidance issued on prescribing or monitoring of cannabis-based medicinal products was received by Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) on 24 November 2025. A response was provided to the applicant on 12 February 2026.

On 23 February 2026, HCJ were advised that the applicant had contacted the Central Information Governance Office requesting informal clarification on a number of matters, including the content of the FOI response. It was noted that if a substantive response could not be provided by 26 February 2026 an Internal Review would be initiated. As providing a substantive response to the queries raised would require a review of all information held relating to the FOI request and response, HCJ asked that the applicant be informed that this was not possible to complete by 26 February 2026 and a request for Internal Review be registered accordingly.

On 04 March 2026, HCJ received confirmation that an Internal Review was opened on 27 February 2026 querying the application of exemptions and the completeness of the response provided, as follows:

“Article 23, information accessible by other means

Health and Care Jersey have relied on Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 for information said to be available elsewhere and has directed me to previously published FOI responses (including ReportID 6968 and ReportID 8739) and the States Assembly website.

Please confirm that the links provided contain the full information relied upon, including any disclosure packs and attachments, and that they are reasonably accessible without restriction. If any attachments are not available or are incomplete via those links, please provide the missing material directly.

Redacted pack and completeness of disclosure for question 4

The response refers to a 'redacted pack'. Please confirm that the attachment titled 'Freedom of Information response 767263926 Attachment.pdf' is the complete redacted pack for this request, covering:

a. 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, and

b. April 2025 to the date of receipt of my FOI request.

Please also confirm whether any documents within scope were withheld in full. If so, please provide a schedule of withheld items identifying, for each document, the date, title or description, and the exemption relied upon (for example Article 23, Article 25, Article 33).

Question 1 and question 2, confirmation regarding any locally held guidance or similar documents

Health and Care Jersey states that it does not hold any policies, guidance notes, standard operating procedures or similar documents relating to the regulation, oversight or monitoring of private medical cannabis clinics in Jersey, and that it does not hold locally issued policies or guidance governing the prescribing or monitoring of cannabis based medicinal products by private clinics. It also states that it does not hold policies or guidance addressing legal or tribunal letters, or expectations on continuity of care and discharge arrangements for patients receiving such products from private clinics.

However, the disclosed material includes a Medical Cannabis Governance Review dated September 2021 which contains recommendations and sections addressing prescribing guidance, training, indemnity, and clinical governance.

To avoid any ambiguity, please confirm whether any policies, guidance, standard operating procedures, action plans, meeting minutes, formal outputs or subsequent documents were created, issued, or implemented following that review (or similar work) at any time since 1 January 2020.

If such documents exist, please provide copies.

If they do not exist, please confirm explicitly that none are held.

Question 3, confirmation regarding agreements

Health and Care Jersey states it holds no contracts, memoranda of understanding, or other formal agreements with any private medical cannabis clinic relating to the operation of private clinics or the prescribing of cannabis based medicinal products in Jersey.

Please confirm whether this also includes any data sharing agreement, information sharing protocol, service level agreement, letter of expectation, or any other written agreement between Government of Jersey bodies (including Health and Community Services and Health and Care Jersey) and any private medical cannabis clinic concerning the operation of such clinics or prescribing in Jersey.”

Internal Review Response

The Deputy Medical Director and the Consultant Pharmacist (Digital Systems) were asked to undertake the Internal Review. Neither party had been involved in composing or approving the original response or in the original decision to apply Article 23 [Information accessible to applicant by other means].

The Internal Review was coordinated and administered by the HCJ FOI Officer, and took place at Jersey General Hospital on 24 March 2026. The in-scope FOI response and the Internal Review Procedure were shared with both reviewers on this day.

Both the Deputy Medical Director and the Consultant Pharmacist (Digital Systems) were asked to consider whether:

• ​the Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 has been properly applied
• it is possible to provide you with any further information, and

They will also provide an outcome of the internal review by stating whether:

• the original decision is upheld, or
• the original decision is reversed in part or in full, or
• the original decision is modified

____________________________________________________________________________________

Has the Law been properly applied?

In respect of Article 23:

Article 23: Information accessible to applicant by other means - Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, states:

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably availabl​e to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge. 

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.

As information covering part of the timeframe in scope of the request, or which otherwise supports the request is available elsewhere, HCJ applied the Article 23 exemption and directed to published materials or the websites where information sought could be found. The information signposted and linked documents have been checked; all are active and are reasonably accessible.

In respect of the completeness of disclosure and materials withheld / exemptions applied:

The redacted pack supplied with the response (Freedom of Information response 767263926 Attachment.pdf) contains correspondence from 01 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 (inclusive), and from 02 April 2025 to 19 November 2025 (inclusive) as the date immediately preceding the request submission on 20 November 2025. Published correspondence and associated information covering the period from 01 January 2022 to 01 April 2025 was signposted, and Article 23 applied.

Correspondence detailing personal medical history and care experience were returned in the searches performed. This correspondence was withheld as it was determined to be exempt from disclosure under Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011; the exemption was cited, as appropriate.

Article 25: Personal information - Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011, states:

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. 

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if – 

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and (b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.[3] 

(3) In determining for the purposes of this Article whether the lawfulness principle in Article 8(1)(a) of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 would be contravened by the disclosure of information, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to that Law (legitimate interests) is to be read as if sub-paragraph (b) (which disapplies the provision where the controller is a public authority) were omitted.[4]

Both Article 23 and Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 are absolute exemptions. Having reviewed the definitions as stated in the relevant legislation, it was agreed that the Law had been appropriately considered and applied.

Is it possible to provide you with any further information?

Whilst the personal information of individuals as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 may be exempt from disclosure and publication through the Freedom of Information mechanism, alternative avenues are available to applicants seeking their own personal information, including correspondence.

Whilst preparing the response and associated correspondence, and in line with our duty to provide advice and assistance [Article 12 – Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011​], HCJ considered that the applicant might be seeking personal correspondence of which they were the data subject (as part of the broader request). With this in mind, on 23 January 2026, HCJ asked the Central Information Governance Office to advise the applicant of the Subject Access Request mechanism (should this be appropriate to the applicant’s needs). HCJ is unaware as to whether this information was relayed to the applicant, as no confirmation of this has been received.

Further information on this mechanism and how to make a request can be found on the Government of Jersey website at the following link:

How to make a Subject Access Request (SAR)​

In respect of the confirmations requested

Confirmation regarding any locally held guidance or similar documents

As detailed in the original response, HCJ does not hold any policies, guidance notes, standard operating procedures or similar documents relating to the regulation, oversight or monitoring of private medical cannabis clinics in Jersey, nor locally issued policies or guidance specifically governing the prescribing or monitoring of CBPMs by private medical cannabis clinics.

The referenced sections of the Medical Cannabis Governance Review (September 2021) relate to the review findings on the training, indemnity, and clinical governance arrangements in place at each of the private medicinal cannabis clinics reviewed; business-specific detail is redacted due to the commercially sensitive nature of the information, as outlined in the original response and public interest test. The section entitled ‘Prescribing Guidance’ links to official online guidance to support prescribing practice, as disclosed.

Confirmation regarding agreements

As detailed in the original response, HCJ holds no formal agreements with any private medical cannabis clinic relating to the operation of private clinics or the prescribing of cannabis-based medicinal products in Jersey.

HCJ is not able to provide a response in respect of information held by other Government Departments.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Outcome

It was agreed that HCJ appropriately handled the original response and that the exemptions applied are compliant with the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. Therefore, the original decision is upheld​.