The Cambridge Two Campaign official site

Justice for those who help the homeless?

New Law Journal
14th January, 2000
Reprinted with the kind permission of the New Law Journal

By Nicola Padfield

On Friday December 17, 1999 two well respected people, Ruth Wyner and John Brock, who have spent over twenty years working in the homeless sector, were sent to prison, one for five years, and the other for four years, for having knowingly permitted or suffered illegal heroin dealing on the premises they managed, under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971… Or on an alternative interpretation, for doing their job in good
faith. 1 How has it happened?

They were the Director and Project Manager of Wintercomfort for the Homeless, a Cambridge charity which since 1991 has offered services and support for homeless people. Founded by a local businessman in 1989, it took off because of the support of many individuals and most importantly statutory funding agencies. I declare an interest; I chaired the trustees (the council of management) from 1991 to 1995, and continue to chair the Friends of Wintercomfort.

In 1997-1998 there was widespread concern about increasing use of heroin in Cambridge. Ruth Wyner, for example, wrote several pieces in the local paper spoke at a national conference on the extent of the problem, pointing out how drug dealers particularly target homeless people. Everyone knows that it is impossible to run a project for homeless people (or even a prison or a railway station) without some dealing on the premises. What seems to have caused the police concern was the amount of dealing they discovered at Wintercomfort, the charity's policy of confidentiality and the enforcement of its anti drugs policy 2 They were justified, it now appears, in looking more closely.

All at Wintercomfort welcomed the arrest of drug dealers. But were the police right to act as they did, mounting an undercover operation, rather than talking openly with and consulting all those involved? Why did the police act as they did? Why did they not talk to the trustees? What are the priorities of community policing? Who authorise, and after what consultation within the force, the secret surveillance? Was a conviction of the project managers more important than the arrest of dealers, or the maintenance of a relationship of trust with those who work with homeless people?

For three months the charity's building was monitored by secretly installed cameras; two undercover officers posing as homeless people had microphones and video cameras. The first anyone associated with Wintercomfort knew about this was when, in May 1998, Ruth was arrested at the end of a staff meeting. She rang me from the police station, "Nicky, I'm at Parkside, they've taken away my shoes, my bag, everything, and I'm under arrest. What should I do?". I rang the Superintendent, who would not discuss the case but made it clear it was serious. I tried to ring Ruth back but was told I couldn't do so, but I left a message that she needed a practising lawyer, and told her to ask for the duty solicitor. She waited many hours: the first solicitor couldn't help as they were already representing a drug dealer.

John was arrested a fortnight later at home in front of his children. For 18 months, bail conditions stopped them going near their place of work, and from talking to the majority of their colleagues. The Charity Commission ordered their suspension, though this was challenged by the trustees, and eventually lifted by the Charity Commission after action in the High Court was commenced against them. The personal strain on both individuals and their families has been huge.3 The damage to the charity has also been immense.

Both Ruth and John pleaded not guilty. I, for one, encouraged them to fight the prosecution. I still find it difficult to believe that a jury, properly directed and fully aware of the relevant facts, could convict them of knowingly permitting the supply of heroin.4 They therefore lost their discount for a guilty plea: so much for the presumption of innocence 5 This is a classic example of the gross unfairness of the statutory discount for a timely guilty plea. Both genuinely considered themselves innocent. Would they have avoided prison if they had pleaded guilty? I fear they would.

After a trial which lasted more than six weeks in King's Lyn Crown Court, the judge appears to have told the jury that they should convict if they believed the pair had not taken every step at their disposal to deal with drug dealers. He is reported as having said they could not hide behind a policy of confidentiality. There was no evidence of any staff involvement or actual permitting of individual drug deals. One respectable volunteer has written to the local paper since the conviction saying that she was always impressed by the vigilance with which staff the anit-drugs policy. However, the evidence was clear that there was very much more dealing going on than anyone realised.

After they were convicted, Ruth and John were deeply traumatised: the verdict hit Ruth, she said, like a 10 ton hammer. What they feel now having been sentenced to five years and four years in prison, is, difficult to imagine. He is in Bedford prison; she was transferred after a few nightmarish days in Holloway to Highpoint Prison. Neither has a single cell.

In the words of the judge, when imposing sentence, they had clear responsibilities that they had deliberately ignored, with their eyes open. What are these clear responsibilities which they deliberately ignored? The policy of confidentiality, agreed of course by the trustees, makes sense to me both in terms of building up a relationship of trust with clients, and in order to protect staff from attack. If the police wanted to challenge this policy, they could have done it informally or through existing channels of umbrella groups such as the National Homeless Alliance.

It is not easy to discuss these matters with the police: I tired to discuss Wintercomfort's anti-drug policy with the police and CPS in 1993 but they didn't wish to respond. In 1997-1998, when the police became aware of the extent of dealing, surely this should have been discussed openly. Throughout the period of surveillance (and to this day) a police inspector attends advisory groups, and the beat bobby drops in on the project. I don't believe any staff connected with Wintercomfort wanted (or wants) to break the law: I don't think the judge suggested that Ruth and John wanted to do so. He said that they deliberately ignored their clear responsibilities.

The judge noted that now that the project had become a closed door project, with individuals only admitted on request, significantly dealing has ended. I wonder how many people who Wintercomfort would like to help feel unable to ring the doorbell outside the gate. Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is normally used against, for example, pub landlords who deliberately ignore or even facilitate drug dealing. Can it really have been designed to criminalise those who were working in good faith on society's behalf, with difficult and marginalized people?

Once convicted, what is a suitable sentence for this crime? Ruth and John have done community service for 20 years, doing jobs which few of us would manage to sustain. As dedicated professionals, they were working towards the long term rehabilitation of people on the streets. The judge noted that he specifically reduced the sentences because of the impact the trial process had had on the two. What was his starting point? His message was one of deterrence. "…the court must place its duty to protect the young and disadvantaged above your own particular circumstances today. The only way in which it can do that is to pass sentence designed to deter others from permitting such dreadful circumstances from arising again".

Deterrence is a discredited concept amongst many philosophers of punishment. But even leaving aside that argument, who did the judge think he was deterring? One local councillor said in the local paper, "I'm deeply sorry that two people who have given so much of their lives to the most vulnerable in our society should be going to prison. It's unthinkable". The price they and their families are paying is indeed unthinkable. Can this sentence, or any further punishment, be justified?6

Here's a small irony: in 19993/1994 Wintercomfort had problems with a violent client who would not accept the fact that he had been banned from the project. The police said they could not help the charity enforce the ban; instead one trustee spent much time obtaining a civil injunction, and I had an unhappy time over Christmas and New Year bicycling around Cambridge in order to serve the injunction upon this man. The criminal law could not help here: yet it can send two committed and hard working charity workers to prison for four and five years. The judge said the two defendants did not co-operate with police: did the police adequately co-operate with Wintercomfort? Of course the local beat officers who used to drop into the project did not know about the undercover operation: did the police liaise adequately internally?

My main interest now (and that of many others) is to get Ruth and John out of prison as soon as possible. This is largely in the hands of their lawyers, I suppose, but they need all the help they can get. Can press coverage help? Secondly, I'd like to help provoke a serious inquiry into what happened in this case: was it an appropriate use of tax payers' money to have mounted this operation, this trial and now to enforce this punishment? Thirdly, we need to think of the implications of this case: law-abiding people will be extremely wary of running front line agencies providing services for people leading chaotic lives and sometimes criminal lives. That necessarily involves risk and a legal tightrope, and needs police co-operation and not confrontation.

Nicola Padfield is Fellow and President of Fitzwilliam College; Cambridge.

1. The words of a trustee of the charity, the Senior Bursar of St. John;s College, amongst others.

2. I say "seems to have caused": no member of the police force approached any of the trustees of the charity with their concerns , and after Ruth and John's arrest in 1998, they refused to discuss the case.

3. Nor should the financial costs be forgotten.Even before they were convicted and lost their salaries, they were having to pay for such things as their daily fares to King's Lynn for the trial and their Legal Aid contributions. A fund, which needs a large injection of money, exists to help them financially with their costs. It is being managed by Dr. George Reid, Senior Bursar, St. John's College, Cambridge.

See the donate section of this site).

4. See Souter 55 Cr App R 403.

5. See Art 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

6. The dealers caught on the premises received sentences of 2 and 5 years.