UK: Prison for charity workers
01 January 2000
Two drugs workers jailed for failing to prevent heroin dealing at a day centre for the homeless are awaiting a date to appeal against their sentences. In a case that caused outrage across the voluntary sector, Ruth Wyner and John Brock, both 49, were sentenced in December to five and four years respectively after they were found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to prevent drug-dealing on the premises. Charges against the two followed an undercover surveillance operation by Cambridgeshire police at the Wintercomfort day centre that began in February 1998. Three months later police arrested eight people on charges of dealing together with Wyner and Brock, Wintercomfort's director and manager. The latter were to receive harsher sentences than the convicted dealers.
An "exemplary drugs-policy" or "a haven for heroin-dealers"?
The two were charged with "knowingly permitting or suffering the supply of a class A drug on the premises" under Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971). Although Wintercomfort banned anyone found or suspected of dealing in drugs, Cambridgeshire police wanted them to pass-on the details of any suspects to them. Wyner and Brock's refusal to do so, in line with the Wintercomfort's confidentiality policy, led Judge Jonathon Haworth to call them creators of "a haven for heroin dealers" and in effect instruct the jury to find them guilty. In January the two were refused leave to appeal against their convictions.
Estimates of drug use among homeless people have been put at 20-70% and most users will be involved in some small-scale dealing with other users to reduce the cost of their own drugs. Any organisation offering support and assistance to homeless people are faced with people bringing their problems to that organisation.
In his sentencing statement, Haworth criticised Wyner and Brock for issuing only nine or 10 bans to people for actual drug-dealing over a 16 month period. He failed to mention that during that time there were also 162 bans for suspected dealing or other drug offences. Greg Pouter (then deputy director of Release, a drugs and legal advice group) described Wintercomfort's drugs policy as "exemplary" and suggested the number of bans even verged on the harsh. The police, however, were not satisfied and demanded access to the names of anyone in receipt of a ban. Wyner and Brock refused. The charity had a clear confidentiality policy that had been approved by its trustees (without which it would be impossible to gain the trust of those people it sought to help). Furthermore, the vast majority of the bans were for suspected dealing, unsubstantiated by solid evidence. Consequently, Haworth went on, "the police had no alternative, but to mount a covert surveillance operation at considerable expense in manpower resources". Despite police representatives being on the day centre's advisory committee, the apparent alternative of approaching the trustees to discuss the confidentiality policy or warn management staff that they were at risk of arrest was never pursued.
A new zero tolerance?
There are major implications for organisations and individuals who work with drug-users. Homeless people with drug problems may now face the prospect of being turned away by the few organisations capable of providing help while all those who work with drug-users are apparently at risk of arrest. These organisations are now calling on the government to produce clear guidelines to allay their fears, yet the "Drugs Czar" and "Homeless Czar" created by the government have both been silent.
Kevin Flemen, of Release - who have issued emergency advice - is concerned that "some organisations have over-reacted by disclosing too much information to the police". No organisation is obliged to hand over the names of those who take or possess drugs on its premises, he said.
It is now up to the Court of Appeal to decide on Wyner and Brock's sentences.
While<