Full details of the case are to be found at the official Cambridge Two Campaign site.

Articles reprinted here:
Times Law Report, 28 Dec 2000
The Guardian, 22 Dec 2000 - Convictions upheld
The Guardian, 1 Dec 2000 - No return to prison
Daily Telegraph, 12 July 2000 - Charity pair are freed to appeal over heroin case
The Guardian, 12 July 2000 - 'Cambridge Two' freed pending appeal
Observer, 2 Jan 2000 / Observer, 9 Jan 2000 - Nick Cohen's articles in the aftermath of the convictions

Two managers of a refuge for the homeless who were jailed in the first case of its kind for "knowingly permitting" drugs to be peddled at the hostel lost their attempt to have their convictions quashed yesterday.

Homelessness charities said the appeal court's dismissal of appeals by Ruth Wyner and John Brock would make it harder to tackle drug addiction among street sleepers.

Wyner was the director and Brock the manager of the Bus Project, a daytime drop-in centre run by the charity Winter Comforts for the Homeless in Cambridge. Wyner was given a five-year prison sentence and Brock four years after being convicted last December of permitting the centre to be used for supplying heroin.

The so-called Cambridge Two, both 50, admitted they knew dealing was going on and tried to tackle the problem. They were released from prison last July pending their appeal, after serving 207 days.

Yesterday three judges ruled that their sentences were "very significantly too high" and reduced them to 14 months or, "if necessary, such a lesser term as ensures their immediate release". But the judges warned that those found guilty in similar circumstances in the future could expect stiffer sentences of 18 months or more.

The charity had operated a policy of confidentiality under which information about the people who attended the centre would not generally be passed on to outside agencies, including the police. After Wyner and Brock were convicted, some charities began turning away drug addicts and suffered staff shortages because people were unwilling to run the risk of imprisonment for failing to inform on those seeking shelter.

Lord Justice Rose said it was "not open to the defendants to shelter behind the existence of the confidentiality policy". He added: "Refuges for the homeless are vital at a time when homelessness is, sadly, a prevalent feature of the society in which we live. If such refuges become, as this refuge did, a focal point for the distribution of illegal drugs, local authorities, charitable foundations and others may well be reluctant or unwilling to provide the financial support without which such refuges are unlikely to exist."

Wyner and Brock were both of "hitherto impeccable character", he said. But the case "must serve as a warning that no one, however well intentioned, can with impunity permit their premises to be used for the supply of class A drugs".

Afterwards, Wyner said she and Brock would take the case to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. "We feel very much for people working in projects with drug addicts as this makes their work much more difficult ... The judges are almost, in a sense, putting a threat of imprisonment over them unless they change their practices."

Rachel O'Brien, of the homelessness charity Shelter, said the ruling conflicted with the government's strategy to cut the numbers of rough sleepers. Those using drugs, a high proportion of the homeless, needed to have their lives stabilised, including having somewhere to live, before they could be weaned off drugs.

"There is a real danger that the people responsible for providing that accommodation are going to leave those people out in the cold for fear of prosecution," she said.

The chief crown prosecutor for Cambridgeshire, Richard Crowley, said: "Charities, their staff and workers who remain within the law have nothing to fear from this decision."

More about the Cambridge Two at The Guardian's special site

Charity managers Ruth Wyner and John Brock, jailed for allowing drugs to be peddled at a Cambridge hostel for the homeless, were today told by the court of appeal that they would not have to return to prison.

Although three judges in London reserved their decision on the appeals against conviction brought by the pair - who were released on bail in July pending today's hearing - they made the dramatic announcement that the sentences imposed on Ms Wyner and Mr Brock, both 50, were "far too long".

William Clegg QC, prosecuting, told the judges that, if they were to quash the convictions, the Crown would not apply for a retrial.

Lord Justice Rose, sitting with two other judges, said the court was going to take time to consider its judgement on the appeal against conviction, but said, "we are not minded... to send the appellants back to prison".

The so-called Cambridge Two, Ms Wyner and Mr Brock were freed on bail in July by the court of appeal. However, they were warned that they might have to return to prison if they failed in their challenge to convictions of knowingly permitting the supply of heroin at the Winter Comfort Centre.

Ms Wyner, director of the centre, was jailed for five years last December. Mr Brock, a manager, was sentenced to four years.

They were present in court today for the hearing before Lord Justice Rose, sitting with Mr Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Ouseley.

In July the pair were granted leave to appeal on the grounds that the presiding judge at their King's Lynn crown court trial wrongly barred the jury from considering subjectively a major plank of the defence case.

The charity had operated a policy of confidentiality under which information about the homeless and vulnerable people who attended the centre would not generally be passed on to outside agencies, including the police.

Michael Mansfield QC, for the pair, argued that Judge Jonathan Haworth erred in not allowing the jurors to consider whether, in the light of that widely-accepted policy, Ms Wyner and Mr Brock acted reasonably in not telling the police what they knew about drug dealing.

The jailing of Ms Wyner and Mr Brock has been a cause of concern for workers at hostels and day centres across the country.

Some charities began turning away drug addicts and suffered staff shortages because people were unwilling to run the risk of imprisonment for failing to inform on those seeking shelter.

Earlier today, as she entered the royal courts of Justice in London to cries of "good luck" from supporters, Ms Wyner said: "I am fairly optimistic we will get justice here."

She said that the ruling which appeal judges Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Ouseley made could have a major impact on those working with the homeless.

She also warned that, following her experience, homeless workers could now be worried about openly liaising with the police about drug problems among their clients.

She said: "The case has very wide implications for homeless centres as a whole, so I feel nervous about that as well as my own personal situation.

"Basically, John and I were never accused of any involvement in the drug dealing or drug use.

"If you work with drug addicts, there is implicit knowledge that some (drug) exchanges will take place. Is that 'knowingly allowing'?

"If it is, it would mean homeless agencies cannot work with people using drugs without breaking the law themselves.

"At Winter Comfort, we thought we had a good liaison set up with the police. We talked openly about our problems and concerns about drug use among our clientele.

"It seems they used that against us. Staff working with the homeless are now likely to be very worried about being open with the police - I certainly would be after my experience."

A new petition has been launched calling for Section 8 of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act - the section under which Ms Wyner and Mr Brock were convicted - to be rewritten.

The Cambridge Two Campaign, which launched the petition, said that it had been backed by trade union Unison, national drugs helpline Release, Cambridge MP Anne Campbell, Worthing West MP Peter Bottomley, and The Big Issue magazine.

Alexander Masters, the chairman of the campaign, said: "This is an extremely important issue, as the convictions of Ruth and John showed.

"Section 8 is dangerous law which creates tension between the police and charity workers. Until Section 8 is rewritten, it will be impossible for charities working with the homeless or with drug users ever to feel safe."

More about the Cambridge Two at The Guardian's special site

After 207 days in prison, two charity workers were freed on bail yesterday pending a full appeal against their landmark conviction for permitting drug dealing at a homeless day hostel.

The public gallery in the Court of Appeal erupted in cheers and whistles as Lord Justice Rose granted unconditional bail to Ruth Wyner and John Brock, both 50. They were jailed for five and four years respectively in December after becoming the first charity workers to be convicted under Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Yesterday they were granted leave to appeal.

This came six months after a High Court judge granted leave to appeal against sentence. Their appeals will be held in the autumn. Before they were led to freedom, Wyner and Brock were told they faced a return to prison if they failed in their challenge to their conviction that they knowingly permitted the supply of heroin at the drop-in centre in Cambridge.

Lord Justice Rose, sitting with Mr Justice Holman and Mr Justice Moses, granted leave to appeal on the grounds that the trial judge wrongly prevented the jury from considering a key plank of the defence case.

Michael Mansfield, QC, for the two, argued that Judge Jonathan Haworth should have allowed jurors to put themselves in the defendants' shoes and consider whether they acted reasonably to prevent the supply of drugs in the context of the hostel and the difficult work they were doing.

On the steps of the High Court in London, more than 50 supporters, who have campaigned for their release for seven months, cheered as Wyner and Brock appeared with their families clutching bunches of flowers. Wyner, a mother of two, who was the director of the Wintercomfort charity in Cambridge, said: "I am looking forward to spending some precious time with my children and some private time with my husband. Now I just want to go home and have a decent cup of coffee."

Brock, who suffered a breakdown in jail and is being treated for depression, clutched his wife and sons, Lloyd, 16, and Dylon, 11, outside court. He said: "I am just very glad to be back with my family. The opportunity to be with them might be brief and so at the moment it's a cautious celebration."

The campaign had been a "lifeline" for him in prison. He said: "I heard about it through my wife and through letters and newspapers I read. It was tremendously important." His wife, Louise, 39, who has decorated their home in Cambridgeshire with yellow ribbons,said: "I just want to take him home."

Brock and Wyner, both of whom had years of experience working with the homeless, were charged after an undercover operation by police in which two officers posed as homeless clients, Ed and Swampy, and were offered heroin eight times out of the 12 they visited the drop in centre.

The centre operated on an open door basis, allowing in anyone who needed help and staff had to follow a policy of confidentiality agreed by the charity's trustees. Under it, information about the homeless and vulnerable people who attended would not be passed on to outside agencies.

In the light of that, Mr Mansfield said, the jury should have been allowed to consider if Wyner and Brock acted reasonably in not informing police of what they knew about drug dealing. Highlighting the "laudable" work the hostel did, Mr Mansfield said it was recognised that, among the homeless at the day centre, some would run foul of the law from time to time.

He said: "This charity has set itself up to confront a very urgent social problem which otherwise would be ignored," he said. "We could all walk by on the other side of the street but Wintercomfort decided not to." As in other institutions like prisons, which dealt with similar categories, it was known there was drug dealing but Wyner and Brock never knew the scale of it.

Mr Mansfield said: "The question then arises what are you expected to do? The trial judge is saying that effectively you have to take every available step to ensure that no such thing happens again and unless you do, you are permitting it. But that is unrealistic. There has to be a limit. You wouldn't wish to close the institution, whether it was a prison or anything else."

He said the case was "clearly of considerable importance" for large numbers who work in the field.

Two charity workers jailed in a landmark case for knowingly permitting drug dealing at a hostel for the homeless were yesterday freed on bail pending an appeal.

The release of Ruth Wyner and John Brock by the appeal court in London brought relief to social workers and volunteers in the homeless field who have campaigned against the pair's conviction and sentence.

There has been concern that the jailing of Wyner and Brock, for five and four years respectively, after police discovered heroin was being peddled at the hostel they managed, set a dangerous precendent.

Some centres have turned addicts away rather than risk similar accusations, while others have seen a drop in volunteers.

A campaign backed by Julie Christie, Tom Stoppard and Michael Winner has called for an overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which led to the jailing of the pair. A full appeal in the autumn will decide whether the convictions of Wyner and Brock were fair.

Wyner, a director of the Wintercomfort charity in Cambridge, and Brock, a charity manager, were convicted in December of knowingly permitting the supply of heroin.

The pair, both 50 and with years of experience working with the homeless, were arrested after police mounted a surveillance operation at the shelter. A spy camera captured dealing in the shelter's courtyard while two police officers posing as homeless men visited the centre 12 times and bought heroin on eight occasions.

During the trial at King's Lynn crown court, the prosecution claimed the centre was "almost a supermarket for heroin". Wyner and Brock insisted that they were shocked at the extent of the dealing and it was accepted that they were never present when dealing was taking place.

At the heart of the case was the charity's policy of confidentiality which effectively prevented them from handing over the names of those suspected of being involved in drugs to the police.

Such a policy is common in the homeless sector. And as there is a high level of drug addiction among the homeless - up to 70% say some estimates - many experts believe that some dealing is almost inevitable in many hostels.

Yesterday Michael Mansfield QC, counsel for the pair, argued that at the trial, Judge Jonathan Haworth did not give the jury enough leeway to decide if Wyner and Brock had taken all reasonable steps to prevent drug dealing.

He said Wyner and Brock had felt bound by the policy of confidentiality "and felt they should not save in extreme circumstances hand over information to other agencies including the police".

Wintercomfort was not an "isolated maverick" organisation, but a respected charity set up to confront an urgent social problem, said Mr Mansfield.

He added: "Unfortunately in this day and age there are a larger number of people than ever before who have no other home than the street.

"Wintercomfort filled a gap where others fear to tread, hoping to restore dignity to individuals so they could re-enter the mainstream of life and make a contribution."

Mr Mansfield said that the centre, funded by the local health authority and local councils and overseen by a board of trustees, provided shelter and food to around 100 homeless people a day.

He pointed out that the police were closely involved in the project. A senior officer attended advisory meetings and a local beat officer frequently visited. During the trial he had said that he felt Wyner and Brock were doing "as good a job as could be expected".

Mr Mansfield said the case was of considerable importance for many others who worked with the homeless.

He said that Wintercomfort now had a different system, operating a "closed door" policy in which all visitors' names were taken, and opening for shorter hours.

A public gallery packed with supporters of the "Cambridge Two" erupted in loud and sustained cheering and applause as Lord Justice Rose announced the appeal court's decision to grant bail. Wyner turned to Brock and planted a kiss on his forehead.

There were more scenes of delight outside the court as the pair were released.

Hugging in turn her husband, Gordon, 52, daughter Rachel, 16, and son Joel, 23, Wyner said: "I am absolutely delighted. I'm looking forward to spending some precious time with my children and private time with my husband. I'm also looking forward to a good cup of coffee. The past seven months have been very tough indeed."

Brock, who was greeted by his wife Louise, 39, and sons Lloyd, 16, and Dillon, 11, said: "I'm overjoyed to be with my family again. I'm looking forward to being with them. It's a cause for cautious celebration."

Peter Bottomley, Tory MP for Worthing West, who has backed the pair's campaign, said: "There is an expectation that the convictions will in the end be overturned and there is also a view that the grossly excessive sentence will receive adverse comment in the court of appeal."

He said social workers across the country had been horrified by the case.

More about the Cambridge Two at The Guardian's special site

The sentencing to prison of two charity workers has shocked and scandalised Cambridge

On 17 December at King's Lynn Crown Court, a representative section of the Cambridge intelligentsia was pushed as close as its good manners and quiet temperament permitted to riot. Judge Jonathan Haworth, a new beak who has been delivering stern sentences from the moment his bottom hit the bench, put Ruth Wyner and John Brock on the casualty list of the unwinnable war on drugs.

Their punishment was commonplace, but their offence was distinctive. No one suggested they were heroin dealers or users. The prosecution didn't allege that they were money launderers, racketeers taking protection money, or Channel Island bankers wary of inquiring too closely about the provenance of the large piles of notes that passed through entrepreneurs' accounts. The hapless couple didn't look like gangsters; to be frank, no drug baron would have been seen dead in their mousy clothes.

By the standards of what used to be conventional morality, Wyner and Brock were admirable people who had followed the instructions of Tony Blair and Louise Casey, his Homelessness Tsarina, and got beggars off the streets and in to Wintercomfort, an acclaimed network of refuges in Cambridge that supplied hot food, tea, washing machines, baths, GPs, advice on finding homes and jobs and, indeed, rehabilitation from drug addiction.

Haworth was unimpressed. The jury had found them guilty of allowing the sale of heroin at their day centres and they had to be punished for their 'deliberately obstructive' behaviour. As he wound himself up with ever more chilling descriptions of their 'perverse' refusal to show remorse and the 'dreadful circumstances' at Wintercomfort, spectators didn't need Mystic Meg to predict the sequel. One fraught woman interrupted his harangue with a shout of: 'I was on drugs for 20 years until Wintercomfort helped me.' She was silenced. The judge gave Ruth Wyner five years and John Brock four - harsher punishments than he had imposed on the heroin dealers who had been netted in their hostels.

They gripped the dock rail. Catcalls and sobs filled the courtroom. Wyner's 21-year-old son, Joel, bellowed at the judge: 'You scum. You ought to be arrested.' But it was the young man who was arrested and ordered to apologise or be sent to join his mother in the cells for contempt of court. The hard-man act over, Haworth made a characteristically modern switch from brutalism to sentimentality and cooed his best wishes to the charity's appalled volunteers and patrons. 'Finally, I wish to say a word to those who so selflessly give of their time and money to aid the work of Wintercomfort. I hope they will emerge from this unhappy episode strengthened in the knowledge that their purposes are laudable.'

His Pecksniffery was intolerable. The public in the gallery stood up before he was half way through his peroration and walked out. Gordon Wyner, Ruth's husband, tried to lunge at a policeman in the corridor and had to be held back by his friends. The next night, 100 people protested outside Parkside police station in Cambridge, where Wyner was being held before being transported to Holloway, and picked an action committee to organise an appeal.

Peter Bottomley, a Conservative MP with liberal leanings, has put down questions in Parliament. The answers should make interesting reading. The undercover police operation at Wintercomfort has not only brought misfortune to the Wyner and Brock families but shown that the national fad for zero tolerance not only encourages the hounding of the destitute but also the persecution of those who help them.

In The Observer a few weeks ago, Louise Casey instructed us to recognise that the greedy homeless were sponging off 'well-meaning people' whose charity 'perpetuated the problem'. The metropolis, with its anodyne culture, tacky domes, cigar bars and beguiling cuisines from all over the globe, doesn't like its business disturbed by ragged bundles in doorways. The smug orthodoxy of the comfortable is not to blame for poverty but the Salvation Army and the Big Issue, which pretend to want to clean up the mess.

In many respects, Cambridge has been a better example of the theme-park city than the capital. Its medieval architecture blends with businesses in the vanguard of the new economy. The wealthier students and silicon fenlanders have produced fantastically high house prices and an atmosphere of hip propriety. Like London, it has attracted tramps, in part because there are generous tourists to tap; in part because the poor, like everyone else, prefer pleasant scenery to a slum.

Sooner or later, they heard about Ruth Wyner and Wintercomfort. By most accounts, she is an inspirational woman. Alexander Masters, an author who helps out at the charity, spoke for many when he said: 'I'm absolutely devoted to her, she's marvellous.' Wyner began work with the homeless when her brother had a breakdown, took to the streets and ended up diving to his death from the top floor of a hostel. Under her leadership, it won £400,000 of lottery money for a new shelter. Cambridge academics - the vice chancellor of the University, theologians and dons - gave their support. She became a celebrity who was often in the local press.

On one occasion, she warned about the spread of drugs after a man had died of a heroin overdose in a Wintercomfort bathroom. For all that, she had her enemies. 'Some saw her as a modern saint,' said a Cambridge lawyer. 'To others, she was a middle-class do-gooder … a pointy head and ageing hippy who had probably tried drugs herself at some point and was certainly bringing addicts into the city.' The neighbours of the new day centre she wanted to open protested noisily and a faction within Cambridgeshire police's criminal investigation department decided to go for her.

At first sight, they appeared to have an impossible task. Homelessness and drug taking go together (if you need to ask why they search for oblivion, you should try to get out more). The simple division between drug users and dealers breaks down on the briefest of examinations. Many desperate people buy drugs, sell half at a small profit and take the rest themselves. They're scarcely Napoleons of crime. A confusingly named Inspector Constable sat on the charity's advisory board but never warned Wyner she faced prosecution. When the police told her that drugs were on sale, she banned anyone dealing in or suspected of dealing in drugs from the centres. Constable agreed her policy was sensible and all appeared well. But Cambridgeshire CID wanted her to take zero tolerance a step further by giving them the names of the alleged dope peddlers.

At this point, Wyner drew the line. She had to defend confidentiality. If everyone who took drugs thought that they would be shopped, trust would evaporate and her lectures on the virtues of detoxification would play to an empty auditorium. Faced with such an unpromising inquiry, the authorities' determination to destroy her necessitated weird and expensive tactics. Two officers, codenamed Ed and Swampy, posed as derelicts and hung around Wintercomfort as agents provocateurs. They asked to buy heroin and recorded the transactions on hidden cameras. In all, 300 hours of surveillance tape were collected.

Buried in the footage were shots of £10 packages of heroin being exchanged in handshakes. None of the cameras caught Wyner or any other member of the small staff nodding approvingly in the background. The case seemed weak and the internal politics of the Cambridgeshire force muddle-headed. Wyner and Brock's lawyers expected it to be thrown out by the judge as an abuse of the judicial process. But Judge Haworth and the prosecutors said dealers were coming from miles to deliver the global smack market to its customers (one crook, who turned queen's evidence, claimed to be making £1,000 a week) and concluded that Wyner must, somehow, have known what was going on.

The judge was so keen to issue draconian punishments that he allegedly boasted at a soirée about the sentences he was preparing to hand down. In an affidavit which will be presented to the Court of Appeal, Karim Khalil, Wyner's barrister, said he was putting his wig on in the court robing room on the day his client was due to be sentenced when he was told Haworth, while tucking into his food at a dinner party, had told fellow diners that he was going to send the charity workers down.

You might say - it is already being said - that Wyner and Brock have well placed and articulate defenders and the Court of Appeal will surely let them out of jail. I wouldn't necessarily be confident that the senior judiciary will slap down Haworth, a judge whose empathy with the prejudices of these hard times foretells rapid promotion. Even if they are released, much damage will have been done.

Wyner, as you would expect, is holding up well in Holloway. In a prison letter to her friends, she says she is 'feeling a lot more cheerful'. After a 'hellish journey' and a 'difficult couple of days', she overcame her problems with 'one of the screws' and had 'quickly developed my prison defences'. John Brock is another matter. He was a signwriter who gave up his reasonably steady job to work for the charity. He collapsed after his arrest. When the chaplain at Bedford jail phoned his wife before Christmas, her first thought was that he had killed himself.

Sceptical journalists - your correspondent included - tend to mock the tough love of the Prime Minister and his tsars and tsarinas as mere posturing. It's a little too easy to forget that the wretched and the few who want to do something about their condition suffer for their babble.

More about the Cambridge Two at The Guardian's special site

Lawyers, like the criminals they represent, regard grasses as slimeballs. They may fight for advantage, bicker about the division of the loot and assassinate colleagues' characters with the relish of serial killers; these are acceptable, even laudable, ways to behave, as long as they are kept in the family and the outside world is left in ignorance of the law's steamier side.

It says much about the disgust Judge Jonathan Haworth inspired when he imprisoned Ruth Wyner and John Brock for five and four years respectively that briefs are now ignoring the career-destroying risks which threaten narks who break the omerta of the Bar. As we reported last week, one of the many peculiar aspects of this disgraceful prosecution was that the judge said in public before the case was over that he was going to jail the charity workers because the desperate homeless had taken drugs in or near their Cambridge shelter.

Judges are meant to have learned to hold their tongues before they are elevated to the bench. They are also required to maintain at least the appearance that their minds are open until that last moment when all the evidence has been heard and pleas of mitigation and reports on the circumstances of the defendants have been delivered. In this instance, when the suspects did not have criminal records, when they had abandoned comfortable lives to provide what help they could to the destitute, when no one was suggesting that they had taken heroin, or sold heroin, or laundered drug money - when, indeed, the police had approved their policies of banning drug dealers from their day centres and rehabilitating addicts - most people would consider it to be no more than common courtesy that they should be the first to know they were going to be banged up for years in our stinking prison system.

In an affidavit to the Court of Appeal, Karim Khalil, Wyner's barrister, bravely relates how he was getting ready to go in to hear what sentence Haworth would impose when a fellow lawyer said that the judge had announced already at a party his determination to send his client down.

I've no doubt that this would be pooh-poohed as unsubstantiated gossip by the Appeal Court if other witnesses weren't prepared to back him up. The bash at which the garrulous judge announced his sentence was to mark the fiftieth birthday of Gareth Hawkesworth, a local barrister. Everyone who mattered in the tight little world of the Cambridge criminal justice system was there. Guests collared Haworth about the trial of Wyner and Brock which had scandalised liberal opinion in the city. Surely, asked one, he was not even thinking of treating them as dangerous villains.

He certainly was. 'He said he was going to lock them up,' a lawyer who was present told me. 'He went on and on about how there were drug dealers in the shelters and how Wyner and Brock had to be punished. Lots of people heard.'

My lawyer faced a dilemma. He was a friend of Wyner's. She had been on bail since her arrest and he was seeing her for dinner in a couple of days. Was he meant to stay silent and calm her nerves with lying platitudes that all would be well? Or to warn her that she'd better kiss her husband and children goodbye because Haworth had told him he had it in for her? His colleagues advised him to keep quiet or suffer the consequences.

'For the first time in my life I felt ashamed to be a lawyer,' he said. 'I know the judge, the prosecutors and the police and am ashamed for them and of them. Cambridge has become like a rotten, small town in the Deep South. Perhaps we should get John Grisham over to write about us.'

He doesn't want to be named just yet, but points out that, if the Court of Appeal doubts Khalil's affidavit, he and others will have a duty as respectable citizens to come forward and give evidence under oath. I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to covering the hearing.

More about the Cambridge Two at The Guardian's special site