The Cambridge Two Campaign official site

Sentencing Response

In his sentencing statement about Ruth Wyner and John Brock, Judge Haworth made a number of extremely damning remarks about these two charity worker's management of the Wintercomfort Day Centre. The following set of replies to his 16 main criticisms show that his sentencing of Ruth Wyner and John Brock is based almost entirely on misunderstanding. The figures in square brackets indicate the page and paragraph number on which the comment appears, according to the papers released by Cambridge Crown Court. Two mistakes run throughout the sentencing statement, and should be dealt with straight away:

1) The premises under discussion is an open-access Day Centre. It is not, as the judge repeatedly calls it, a 'hostel' or a 'shelter.'

This is important because Day Centres are run in a completely different fashion from hostels and shelters. The last two offer a place to stay for the night: shelters provide emergency beds; hostels, longer-term accommodation. In both, a homeless person has to register, often providing a considerable amount of personal detail, in order to take advantage of the service. An open-access Day Centre has no such requirement, and therefore no such control over the people who use the premises. The Day Centre run by Wintercomfort is designed to be a final safety net. Whoever the person is, whatever their background and circumstances, they can come to such a place knowing that they will not be asked awkward questions, and be given hot food, medical help, and a chance to sort out their lives.

2) Homeless people do not divide neatly into the deserving and the dealers, as the judge appears to believe. Around 50% of the homeless people at a Day Centre will be drug abusers (some estimates put the figure at 70%) and almost all abusers will be involved in small-scale dealing with other drug abusers. They do this to help pay for their habit; the alternative is thieving or prostitution. It is therefore impossible to exclude drug-dealing on the premises for certain without excluding all drug abusers, i.e. at least half of the very people Wintercomfort is supposed to provide services for.

1. 'This case therefore stands on its own particular circumstances, and it holds no message for other similar hostels.' [p.1 para. 4]

The judge appears to be alone in believing this.

'The law says that the proprietor of an organisation is responsible for everything that happens in it, and therefore I assume under this conviction that head teachers who have drug dealing or drug abuse happening in their schools are in law liable for what happens on their premises. So of course this is very worrying.' Mick Brookes, National Association of Head Teachers, speaking on Channel 4 News.

'If these people 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? Not it isn't.' Roy Wolford, Governor of Park prison, quoted in The Independent.

'We need dedicated staff -- people like Ruth Wyner and John Brock -- to help deliver [the government's drug policy], and yet they are treated like this. The work is exhausting and chaotic at the best of times. You can expect to be assaulted by clients, they sometimes die on you, and now you stand to end up in jail just for trying to do your job. What's the motivation for people in this field?' Kevin Fleming, of Release, the national drug and legal advice helpline.

2. The policy at The Bus was to have an open door, and this welcome to all comers soon conflicted with your employer's policy on prohibited drugs. Concern was expressed locally at the difficulties caused in the neighbourhood, and there was a noticeable proliferation in drug use and, importantly, drug supply on and around the project. [p.1 para. 5]

The open-door policy, which means that anybody is allowed to come in, provided they are in need of the service, was in place long before Ruth or John arrived to work at Wintercomfort. The statutory funders -- the City Council, the County Council, and the Health Authority -- all approved and admired it. It was not introduced by Ruth Wyner or John Brock.

What the judge means is not that the policies conflicted with each other, any more than a law allowing the sale of alcohol conflicts with a law against drunken driving, but that an open door policy makes it easier for homeless people to bring drugs onto the premises. Everybody knows this, but the government and funders recognise that an open-door policy also encourages drug abusers to come to Day Centres, where they can then get advice, support and essential medical treatment.

3. '.. there was a noticeable proliferation in drug use and, importantly, drug supply on and around the project.' [p.2 para.1]

Unfortunately, this is the case with all Day Centres, hostels and welfare offices that provide help for a large number of drug abusers. If you have an organisation that looks after a problematic set of people, these people will bring their problems to that organisation. It is not nice, but it is inevitable.

4. Despite the introduction of a specific banning policy in January 1997, and a minuted comment from you, John Brock, at an Advisory Group Meeting of the 21st July 1997 that there was a 'need to look at the obvious dealing in and around the Project', the first ever ban recorded as for drugs dealing was not until 17th August 1997, and then only a ban for two weeks. [p.2 para. 4]

But during the same period there were also 162 bans for suspected dealing and other drug offences. In short, the figures, when taken in context, show just the opposite of what the judge appears to be claiming: Wintercomfort staff, and Ruth and John, were extremely vigilant in their campaign against illegal drugs. Greg Pouter, then Deputy Director of Release, remarked that Wintercomfort had a good drugs policy which verged on the harsh.

What the judge's figures show is not how few bans were made, but how difficult it is to spot a deal. The quantity involved in any one trade among homeless 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 or, perhaps, a bar of chocolate (containing drugs) passed between two addicts.

This is why Ruth and John insisted that people also be banned even for suspected dealing. If, for example, two homeless people were seen to be exchanging money is a suspicious fashion, or having a conversation which suggested setting up a deal, or were caught trying to go in to the lavatory at the same time, in order to be out of sight of the 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.

5. 'One of those banned indefinitely in February was seen time and again on the video film, back on the premises in open defiance of his ban, dealing in drugs, with no action being taken by staff to enforce his ban.' [p.2 para. 4]

This is untrue. This person was repeatedly asked to leave the premises, but refused to move. One of the staff rang the police to help enforce the ban, but because he was not a violent customer she was told that there was nothing that could be done. In cases when the police do respond, it is often much too late: the banned customer has since left of his/her own accord. Even with violent customers, it is very difficult to get a police response. The following account by Nicola Padfield, President of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, made this clear in a recent article in the New Law Journal:

"In 1993/4 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."

6. 'By February 1998 there were up to ten dealers a day operating on and within the premises.' [p. 2 para. 5]

This is based on unreliable claims of one particular drug-dealer (see 8, below), unsupported by other evidence. With their undercover resources, the police succeeded in arresting eight dealers during the whole of the four month operation. These convictions came as a result of the undercover officers buying the drugs from the dealers, and filming the exchange as it took place. Wintercomfort could not, and would never be expected to, organise such an expensive operation itself.

7. 'We saw them on video plying their trade, often in particular locations on the premises, and frequently in the presence or within the view of staff members' [p.3 para. 1]

The suggestion that the staff saw deals and did nothing about it is completely untrue. As the videotape evidence clearly and repeatedly revealed, dealers stopped dealing as soon as there was a risk of being discovered by a member of staff. Deals are extremely hard to detect because the quantities involved are so small. Even the uniformed beat officers, who were encouraged to visit the Day Centre by both Ruth and John, were shown on the videotape evidence walking right past people exchanging drugs, without noticing what was going on. Like the staff, all they could see was a small bunch of customers talking to each other. Perhaps a couple were kissing (mouth-to-mouth exchange); another pair might be shaking hands.

8. 'He (Timothy Pocket) made up to £1000 a day from his dealing there; he bought himself a BMW 7 series motor car, which he took to arriving in, parking it nearby'. [p3 para.1]

Timothy Pocket has over twenty previous convictions, many involving dishonesty. That the judge found him a convincing witness is both regrettable and hard to understand. To take just one obvious example: in the trial Mr. Pocket claimed that he began dealing at the Wintercomfort Day Centre from 9 a.m. In fact, this is impossible: the Day Centre did not open until 11 a.m.

9. 'He gave evidence having been sentenced without any discount for giving evidence, and with no evidence that he had anything to gain from giving his evidence'. [p.3 para.1]

This is an astonishing remark. As the judge should have known, it is easy to secure a statement from a long-term prisoner, without leaving any record of inducement. In the case of Timothy Pocket, there are good grounds for believing that he did have something to gain from giving his evidence. The prosecution called three convicted drug-dealers to give evidence against Ruth and John. One of these, then serving her sentence in Styal prison, revealed in the witness box that:

"the police told me they'd look after me, take me back to Cambridge, and that I had a lot better chance of parole if I gave a statement'.

She also claimed that she was told that they'd 'sort out' an IPV (Inter-Prison Visit) if she gave a statement. (Her boyfriend was serving time in another prison). Like this witness, Timothy Pocket is a long-term prisoner, and the period of his imprisonment depends on whether or not he gets parole.

10. 'Customers came from 30 or 40 miles away for the sole purpose of buying heroin.' [p.3 para.2]

There was no evidence of this. Customers came from 30 or 40 miles away to take advantage of the housing advice and support services offered by Wintercomfort, because the Day Centre is one of only two in the whole of East Anglia. The judge also says 'time and again on video evidence we saw a customer make a purchase and walk straight off the premises and on their way'. In 300 hours of video tape evidence it showed it happening only two or three times.

11. 'Time and again at those meetings the Police sought to raise their concerns; time and again you reassured the police, and indeed your own employers, the Trustees, that you were fully aware of the problem and taking appropriate steps to deal with it. However, when asked to do so, you refused to name to the police any person banned for dealing or suspected dealing in drugs' [p.3 para.3]

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding. The decision not to give names to the police was due to the charity's policy of confidentiality. It was approved by the Trustees. This policy, which many Day Centres and hostels observe, is important because:

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. Without this policy, it would be impossible to gain the trust of people who come to Wintercomfort, and put an end to programmes designed to help the homeless get off the streets and off drugs.

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. Within the limits imposed on them by the confidentiality rule, Ruth and John did everything they could to try to deal with the drug problem. The opening phrase 'time and again' is, once again, misleading. Ruth was at the forefront of those calling for greater action against the growth of drug abuse in the city (see below). She also wrote to the police as early as January 1997 calling for greater police co-operation.

12. 'You claimed to have a policy of confidentiality, which prevented you from assisting the police to arrest and prosecute dealers in a wickedly addictive Class A drug. As I said during the trial, when that policy conflicted with the law it could not stand, yet you sought to uphold it to the last.' [p.2 para. 3]

The same misunderstanding. The policy of confidentiality was approved by the Trustees and enforced by Ruth and John. Naturally they did not know that the policy was likely to get them arrested. The police never warned them of this; neither did the police ever discuss the matter with the trustees. Ironically, Ruth is currently training to be a 'listener' with the Samaritans, at Highpoint prison. In her first session, she was told that she must observe a policy of confidentiality about everything she hears - including all information concerning drug offences - because otherwise prisoners would not trust the listeners and the scheme could not work.

13. 'In the result the police had no alternative but to mount a covert surveillance operation at considerable expense in manpower and resources.' [p.4 para. 2]

There was a very simple alternative: the police could have approached the trustees. The police were on the Advisory Committee of the Day Centre. They could have asked the trustees to discuss the charity's policy of confidentiality, pointing out that otherwise Ruth and John were at risk of arrest. This would have cost no more than the price of a local phone call to arrange. However, the trustees were never contacted.

14. 'offered to tell the police how many people had been banned for drug supply and misuse in the three months January to March 1998. You did so, but gave them outrageously inaccurate figures which in fact covered 15 months, and not 3' [p.4 para. 5]

This was a simple mistake. The police were given figures from January 1997 to March 1988, when what they wanted was the figure from January 1998 to March 1988. There was no need to cover up because the ban book showed the charity's policy was being vigorously enforced across both periods. The judge chose to believe it was a deliberate deception.

15. 'Despite their best efforts the police received not one ounce of co-operation from you in carrying out their duty to arrest drug dealers; you did no more than tolerate their presence at joint meetings..' [p.4 para.5]

This is untrue. The police were encouraged to come on the premises and take part in advisory meetings, held every six weeks and Ruth and John were prepared to co-operate with them as long as it did not involve breaking the trustees' policy of confidentiality. Indeed Ruth wrote to the police, as early as January 1997, asking them to play a more co-operative part in the battle against drugs at the centre. In March 1998 and again in April 1998, Ruth spoke out publicly about the rise of heroin use amongst the homeless. Both times her remarks were reported in the local paper:

'Drug addiction is becoming more of a problem than alcohol for the city's homeless, a charity boss has warned' - (Ruth Wyner).

'The homeless population is getting younger and for the first time ever we are noticing marginally more people with drug problems than alcohol.'

'Drug problems hit the city's homeless', Cambridge Evening News, March 12th, 1998

'There has been an enormously worrying increase [in heroin use] and it's become so much easier to get hold of the drug …. It is making our work harder because people have an additional difficulty to deal with.' 'Heroin use "wrecking lives of the vulnerable", Cambridge Evening News, April 2nd, 1998

It is worth noting the dates of these two press statements. They were made at exactly the same time as the undercover operation was going on yet the police still made no attempt to co-operate with Ruth's campaign against drugs or to contact the trustees.

16. ' And therein lies the seriousness of your offence - in positions of responsibility, trusted to implement and enforce a policy consistent with the law, you broke that trust, you placed in jeopardy the good work that such a project can do, and above all you placed at risk those very people you were supposedly committed to helping' [p.5 para 1]

There are two fundamental misunderstandings here:

1. Ruth and John believed they were enforcing a policy that was consistent with the law and that was essential in order to build up trust between homeless drug addicts and Day Centre staff. This is why their conviction has such widespread implications for any organisation that looks after a large number of drug abusers. The policy of confidentiality is not unique to Wintercomfort; it is often used by many Day Centres around the country. Wintercomfort's drug policy was considered exemplary by Greg Poulter when working at Release, the national drugs and legal advice helpline.

2. As mentioned in the beginning, homeless people do not divide neatly into the deserving and the dealers. Most drug abusers will do small-scale dealing in order to maintain their habit and Ruth and John were as committed to helping them, (to break their habit and get into rehabilitation programmes), as much as they were committed to helping the alcoholics, the mentally disabled, the physically and sexually abused, the ex-convicts, the failed businessmen and the simply unlucky.