CHARITY PAIR JAILED ON DRUGS CHARGE WIN BAIL TO APPEAL

Two charity workers jailed for allowing drug dealing at their centre for
the homeless were released on bail yesterday after seven months in jail.

John Brock and Ruth Wyner were granted bail until the appeal against their
conviction can be heard.

Their sentence raised concern among many charities and voluntary workers
and the campaign to free them was supported by several celebrities,
including Julie Christie, the actress, Sir Tom Stoppard, the playwright,
and Roger Scruton, the philosopher. As the bail decision was given at the
High Court friends and supporters in the packed gallery erupted in
prolonged cheers and whistles. The pair were told they could go back to
jail if their appeal failed.

As they were led out of the cells they were surrounded by family and
friends amid more cheers. Hugging her two children and her husband, Wyner,
49, said: "I am looking forward to spending some precious time with my
children and some private time with my husband."

Surrounded by supporters with placards, an emotional Brock, 49, holding his
wife, Louise, and two children, said: "It is fantastic to be back with my
family even though it may only be for a brief time."

He will return to a home bedecked in yellow ribbons. Waiting for his father
to appear, Lloyd, 16, said: "We were optimistic that we would be able to
bring him home but you are never sure. I am going to give him a big hug."

The pair became the first charity workers to be jailed under section 8 of
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in December when King's Lynn Crown Court was
told that they knowingly allowed heroin to be dealt at the Wintercomfort
charity in Cambridge where they worked.

Wyner, a director of the charity, was jailed for five years and Brock, a
manager at the centre, for four. During his time in jail Brock suffered
what he called "despair and depression". In a letter from prison he wrote:
"I have taken all this rather badly. Nothing prepares the person who has
spent 50 years as a law-abiding citizen and has had a respect for those who
enforce the laws for prison."

While in Holloway, Wyner sent a letter to Gordon, her husband of 25 years,
saying her life had been "cruelly torn away" and described the conditions
as "degradation that is beyond belief".

Michael Mansfield, QC, argued yesterday that the presiding judge at their
trial wrongly barred the jury from considering a major part of the defence
case. The charity operated a policy of confidentiality where they would not
give information to police about the homeless and vulnerable people at
their shelter.

Mr Mansfield said that the judge had made a mistake in not allowing the
jury to consider whether, in light of this policy, the pair acted
reasonably in not telling the police what they knew about drug dealing.

As Lord Justice Rose, sitting with Mr Justice Holman and Mr Justice Moses,
announced their decision to grant bail while the Crown prepared for the
appeal, the public gallery erupted with sustained cheers.

The conviction has angered many workers with the homeless who felt that it
set a dangerous precedent.

Some charities turned away drug addicts and suffered staff shortages as
people were unwilling to run the risk of imprisonment.

The pair denied the charge and said that they had no idea of the scale of
the dealing going on. Mr Mansfield said: "We wish to submit that the
learned judge misdirected himself in the way in which he finally put the
matter to the jury, that the jury were precluded from considering certain
factors."

He said that the confidentiality policy was known to everyone at the centre
and the police also knew about it but never dissuaded them from it.

He added: "The policy, although physically written in part by Wyner,
involved the council of management as well, so on that basis they also
would be guilty. That cannot be right. The jurors should have been told:
'you may look at that policy to decide whether it is a sham or a front. If
you decide it was a genuine policy, was it reasonable not to take the step
of giving names to the police?' "

Mr Mansfield said that the case was important to other institutions,
including prisons. He said that the trial judge appeared to be saying that
if you wanted to stop drug dealing you would have to do everything possible
to do that and that might include closing the institution down.

"We say that is unrealistic and there has to be a limit."