Draft Road Traffic Law

​​Request 821221699

Provide all recorded information held in relation to the development of Draft Road Traffic Law (Drug Driving) (Jersey) Amendment Regulation P.32/2026, include created, received, or considered: 

1. Human rights, equality, and legal considerations:

• Any ECHR compatibility assessments. 
• Any equality impact assessments. 
• Any analysis relating to medical cannabis patients or disability. 
• Any recorded legal or policy consideration regarding the absence of a statutory medical defence. 

2. Scientific, medical, and policy evidence used to set the THC limits (5 μg/L and 2 μg/L):

• Any scientific, medical, forensic, or policy reports, briefing papers, or evidence summaries relied upon when setting THC thresholds. 
• Any internal or external expert advice about whether fixed THC limits reliably indicate impairment.
• Any documents or recorded information discussing: 
• the relationship between THC blood concentration and impairment; 
• the effects of tolerance in frequent or medical cannabis users; 
• the risk that non impaired individuals may exceed the proposed limits. 

​3. Internal communications and risk considerations

• ​Any internal emails, memos, briefing notes, or discussions referencing risks associated with P.32/2026. 
• Any documents referring to: o potential legal challenge; 
• proportionality concerns; o scientific uncertainty around THC thresholds; 
• comparisons with the UK approach, including the statutory medical defence model; o acknowledgement that medical cannabis patients may exceed the limits without impairment.

Response

The information requested is partially exempt under Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as the information is accessible on www.statesassembly.je on the pages linked below.

States Assembly WQ.83/2026​

States Assembly Proposition P.32/2026​

The remaining information is exempt under Article 35 (Formulation and development of policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as the drug driving legislation is currently under development.

Release of the information at this stage would likely generate misinformed debate. This could affect the ability of officials to consider and develop the legislation away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Article applied

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest Test 

In applying this article, the following considerations were considered.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions have taken place in the development of the drug driving legislation (the ‘Legislation’).

• Disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in Legislation development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information:

• In order to best develop the Legislation and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussions can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to the development of the Legislation.

• The release of the information without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data could impact the general public with misinterpretation and generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop the Legislation away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

• The development of Legislation requires appropriate space for internal officers to consider evidence and assess options, particularly where decisions involve detailed scientific material, legal considerations, human rights and road safety objectives.

• Disclosure of internal risk assessments or legal analysis at this stage could give rise to partial or misinformed public debate that does not reflect the full policy context, placing unnecessary external pressure on officers while the legislation remains under development.

• Premature disclosure may reduce the willingness of internal officers and external advisers to provide expertise and exploratory advice in future policy development, due to concerns that provisional views may be taken out of context.

• The development of criminal offences and enforcement thresholds is a particularly sensitive policy area, and the release of internal deliberations could undermine confidence in enforcement before the full legislative and accompanying guidance framework is established.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation.

It should also be noted that once the Legislation is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the Legislation’s formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing significant concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.