The Cambridge Two Campaign official site

Law

Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)

Ruth Wyner and John Brock were arrested in May 1998, and charged under Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971), which states:

A person commits an offence if, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on those premises, that is to say:

a. producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug

b. supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug to another or offering to supply a controlled drug to another

c. preparing opium for smoking

d. smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium

The trial began 18 months later, in October 1999, at Kings Lynn Crown Court, before His Honour Judge Howarth, and lasted for six weeks. The Guilty verdicts were delivered on November 17th, and the sentences pronounced, a month later, at Cambridge Crown Court.

The importance of the case is far greater than that of a miscarriage of justice. This is the first time that Section 8 has been used to prosecute people who were clearly trying to help drug addicts, as opposed to exploiting them. Judge Haworth himself acknowledged that Ruth and John had nothing to gain from 'knowingly permitting or suffering' heroin dealing to go on at the Wintercomfort premises. He recognised that Ruth had spoken out about the problem of heroin among the homeless in the local press. Indeed, this public concern was taken as evidence against them, because it implied that they 'knew' there was drug dealing going on.

Judge Haworth said that, in the indictment, the terms 'permitting' and 'suffering' mean the same thing, namely that 'if the defendants were unwilling to use any reasonable means that were readily available to them to prevent the prohibited activity, then they were permitting the act.' Reasonable means included breaking the policy of confidentiality and passing the names of people banned from the premises on to the police, and closing the project.

If the convictions are upheld on appeal, the implications for other people who work with drug users, homeless or not, are potentially catastrophic. Already, there are reports of day centres and hostels restricting access, to exclude or discourage drug addicts. Some organisations are even finding it difficult to recruit staff, because people are too scared to take up the work. In Cambridge, there have also been disturbing reports of project managers being told by the police that they ought to become informers 'for their own safety'.

Drugs and the Law: Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971.

The implications of the Cambridge Two case were also clearly noted in Drugs and the Law: Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971. This inquiry, which was published to widespread publicity in early April, was set up in order to 'consider the changes which have taken place in our society ... and to assess whether the law as it currently stands needs to be revised in order to make it both more effective and more responsive to those changes.' The report's conclusions are damning: the 1971 law is out of date, confused and unworkable. In the particular case of Section 8, Vicountess Runciman's team concluded that it should be redrafted, and The redraft should repeal the word 'suffers', which is unclear and confusing, and replace the words 'knowingly permits' with the words 'knowingly and wilfully permits [the production or supply of controlled drugs]. 'wilfully' should be defined as meaning 'not caring whether the unlawful production or supply takes place or not'. Finally, it should be provided that a person is not to be regarded as acting wilfully merely by reason of his failure to disclose confidential records or material in respect of the persons in his care. [5.41, p 85] These recommendations, written after evidence given by Release and other organisations following the convictions of the Cambridge Two, make a clear reference to their case. It was largely because Ruth Wyner and John Brock refused to break Wintercomfort's confidentiality policy that they were convicted.

Room for Drugs: Additional Guidlines for Direct Access Services After the 'Wintercomfort Trial'
by Kevin Flemen.

Release, the national drugs helpline, has published an excellent advisory article that looks at the implications of the case in greater detail:

Click here for an executive summary of this publication on the Release site

Government may issue new guidelines

The Government is considering whether to issue new guidelines on drug offences at homeless and other agencies following the Cambridge Two case.

Cambridge MP Anne Campbell wrote to Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Department of the Environment, which funds homeless charities, urging them to investigate the case as a matter of urgency, saying she felt Ruth and John were victims of an unclear policy.

The Home Office Minister Charles Clarke, who is responsible for drugs issues, has now told her the Home Office will be working through the implications of the case with relevant agencies and considering whether fresh guidance is needed in this area. He told Mrs Campbell that he is aware the case has given rise to concerns on a number of fronts and that working with the homeless is challenging.

But he added: Managers, staff and trustees of homeless agencies should ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent the supply of controlled drugs in accordance with the law.

The key lies in an effective drugs policy which will enable the managers and staff at day and night shelters to work effectively with the police and other agencies to prevent drug dealing on their premises.