The Cambridge Two Campaign official site

Frequently asked questions

What is Wintercomfort?

Wintercomfort is a Cambridge-based charity that runs the only day centre for the homeless in South Cambridgeshire, and one of only two such day centres in the whole of East Anglia. It also provides a five-day-a-week doctor's surgery (most GPs won't treat people without a home address), a job training and confidence-building course, help with rent and deposit on accommodation, and assistance with emergency winter shelters. Wintercomfort gives people who would otherwise beg on the streets a place to sit down, sort out their lives, and link in with a range of other essential services. At the time of the arrests of Ruth and John, Wintercomfort was an open-door drop-in-centre. This meant that anyone, whatever their background, reputation or state of mental health, could turn up and find a cheap meal, washing facilities, free clothing and support and advice.

How many people does Wintercomfort help?

Between 60 and 150 people visit the Day Centre every day. Altogether, Wintercomfort helps around a hundred people a year move off the streets and into hostels or private accommodation.

Who are the homeless?

The reasons people become homeless are enormously varied. Some of the commonest causes are mental instability (particularly since the closure of state mental institutions in the 1980s), childhood abuse, alcoholism and drug-addiction. They are a chaotic, often aggressive set of people. Wintercomfort also frequently helps people who were once in high-paid jobs, but have suffered nervous breakdowns after the break-up of their marriage or collapse of their business.

How big is the drug dealing problem among the homeless?

Huge. Estimates suggest that, nationally, around half of homeless people abuse drugs. Ruth and John frequently spoke about the problem, both to staff and to the police, before their arrests. Ruth also talked about it to the local press and at a national conference on day centres.

Who are Ruth Wyner and John Brock?

Ruth Wyner was, until her arrest, the Director of Wintercomfort, and a former executive member of the National Homeless Alliance. John Brock is the former Manager of the Day Centre. They have, between them, worked for the homeless for over thirty years.

Why were they arrested?

Following a five month undercover police operation, eight drug dealers were convicted for trading heroin at the Wintercomfort Day Centre. Ruth and John were arrested, under Section 8 of The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, because they were running the premises. They were charged with knowingly permitting or suffering the supply of a Class A drug (heroin) on the premises.

Why were these arrests so remarkable?

Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act was originally introduced to deal with people who ran pubs and clubs as drug-dealing dens. Previously, it had been difficult to convict such people because they were not dealing themselves, although they encouraged and profited from the dealing of others. The arrests of Ruth and John represent the first time the law has been used against managers of charity premises: i.e. against people who ran a premises set up to help drug users (drug abuse is one of the commonest causes of homelessness), rather than to profit from them.

Were Ruth and John themselves involved in the dealing?

The judge himself accepted that Ruth and John had not been involved in, or benefited from, the dealing in any way.

What does it mean that Ruth and John had knowingly permitted or suffered the supply of drugs on the charity premises?

Because this was a test case, much debate at the trial centred around the correct interpretation of this phrase. By the end of the trial, it became clear that the prosecution had two main arguments:
1. That Ruth and John had not been doing everything they could to combat drug dealing at the Day Centre.
2. That the size of the drug problem at the Day Centre was so large, that Ruth and John must have been turning a blind eye to it.

Were Ruth and John aware of the extent of the dealing?

All Wintercomfort staff were aware that there was a problem; this is why there was a drugs policy to combat it. But no-one knew, until the police investigation, how serious the problem was. For example, one of the main dealers turned out to be a man who regularly complained about drug addicts to the staff. Another dealer kept her drugs stored in her crotch -- not the sort of place Wintercomfort employees were expected to investigate. She was discovered only because of the police surveillance camera, which was pointed at a courtyard outside the building that staff could not constantly monitor themselves. As the camera also showed, whenever a member of staff appeared, deals were immediately stopped.

What had they been doing to combat drug dealing at the Day Centre premises?

Ruth and John instituted a system of bans for anyone suspected of dealing. If, for example, two homeless people were seen to be exchanging money in a suspicious fashion, or having a conversation that suggested setting up a deal, or were caught trying to go into the lavatory at the same time in order to be out of sight of Day Centre staff, then they were banned from the premises on suspicion of drug dealing. Some of the people who were banned may have been, for example, exchanging money because they were settling an old debt (the homeless do not have bank accounts). Nevertheless, Ruth and John were sufficiently concerned by the drug problem that they still banned such people from the premises from one week up to six months or more. There are two main reasons why the bans were almost always for suspected drug dealing rather than for actual drug dealing:
1. Staff did not have the power to search a person. Evidence about dealing was circumstantial.
2. The quantity involved in any one trade among ordinary addicts is tiny: about the size of a sweetcorn kernel. Even if a deal had taken place in front of a member of staff, all he or she would see would be a friendly handshake between two homeless customers or, perhaps, a bar of chocolate (containing drugs) passed between two addicts. Ruth and John also discussed the drugs problem with the police. The charity's drugs policy was formed with police consultation and the police were invited to take part in meetings about the management of the day centre. Wintercomfort's drugs policy was considered an exemplary method by Greg Poulter when working at Release, the national drugs and legal advice service.

What more, before arresting Ruth and John, could the police have done to combat drug dealing at the Day Centre premises?

What made the arrests of Ruth Wyner and John Brock so shocking to the staff and trustees at Wintercomfort was that Ruth and John were never told they were doing anything that might be illegal. There were differences of opinion about how the charity should deal with people banned from the premises, but otherwise was assumed that the police and the charity got along fairly well. The beat officer dropped in regularly and the police were represented at charity advisory meetings. The police did not contact the trustees, Ruth's employers, to make any complaints about the way Ruth was directing the charity, or to point out that the policy of confidentiality might lead to legal action. Had they done this, the trustees could have sorted out problems internally and the matter need never have come to trial.

Why were Ruth and John not prepared to give the names of people banned from the premises for dealing to the police?

The prosecution argued that they should have given the names of all people banned from the premises to the police. Ruth and John refused to do this for three main reasons:
1. To be known as police informers would put the staff at risk of violent reprisals.
2. The charity has a confidentiality policy, approved by the trustees, and in common with many other service providers for the homeless. The policy is designed to gain the confidence of people who come to Wintercomfort to seek help. To give names to the police would destroy and severely hinder any attempt to help the person to get off the streets, off drugs and back into society.
3. The people banned from the premises were almost always punished for suspected dealing. It would be unfair to turn their names over to the police without solid evidence that actual dealing had taken place.

The police undercover operation discovered that a considerable quantity of drug dealing was going on and filmed many of these deals taking place. If they found it so easy to witness actual deals, why couldn't the staff see them, too? Unlike the Wintercomfort staff, the police could observe the occupants without the occupants being aware that they were under observation. The police operation involved two undercover officers dressed up as homeless men and a surveillance camera (on the roof of a nearby building) focussed on an area outside the Day Centre that could not be seen by staff inside the building - it was a blind spot that dealers could use without being caught. Naturally, the dealers did not know they were being filmed, or that two of the homeless people they were selling drugs to were, in fact, policemen.

By contrast, Wintercomfort had one full member of staff (with support from a pool of part-time workers) to oversee up to 150 people. This level of staffing was approved by the statutory funders; volunteers also worked on the project. The dealers all knew the staff and took pains to avoid them when exchanging drugs. There was no evidence that staff witnessed the deals and ignored them. As one customer said, the staff have 'eyes in the back of their heads'. This is why when Ruth was arrested and told about the deals the police had filmed, she said, 'Great, well done,". Ruth's career has been dedicated to getting homeless people off drugs and back into society. Her work would have been made much easier if all the drug dealers could have been removed.

Do other homeless centres also have drug problems?

Yes. Several deaths from drug overdoses have occurred in Cambridge in the last two years. The pattern is repeated around the country; every organisation that provided a service for a large number of drug addicts will also have a large amount of dealing on the premises. Of course, it is not confined to the homeless. Mike Goodman, chairman of Release, said on 'The World Tonight' (Radio 4) that the case has generated 'an enormous amount of confusion and concern, not only in the homeless field, which are on the front line, but also other agencies such as drug agencies, people who are dealing with school excludes and young people who might be involved in [drug taking].

Roy Wolford, the governor of Park prison in Bridgend said in The Independent (17.12.99):

'If these people [Ruth and John] are guilty, then prison governors should be brought to book because technically, with the level of drug-taking there demonstrably is in prison, we are failing too. It should come down to reasonableness. Is it reasonable to expect someone to exclude all drug use among a user population with a high drug-user content? No it isn't'.