Summer Camp Worker Who Drugged and Abused Children Charged – The Importance of Safeguarding Vulnerability

The recent arrest and charging of retired youth worker Jon Ruben has raised increased concerns about safeguarding in residential settings for children. Ruben ran Christian summer camps for decades and was once nominated for a local ‘Supporting Young People’ award. However, the former vet has now admitted to a series of serious sexual offences, including drugging children with sedative-laced sweets and sexually assaulting boys under 13.

Ruben’s actions and arrest have prompted Leicester Police to describe their investigation as “a horrific, complex and emotional investigation involving multiple young, innocent, vulnerable victims”. While the CPS will determine sentencing, survivors and their families will be left with another question: who can be held to account when an abuser takes advantage of the trust placed in them, exploiting a supposedly safe space? 

Who Holds Responsibility for Safeguarding?

When a child attends a school, residential camp or organised youth activity, several layers of legal duty arise. These responsibilities rest not only on the individual perpetrator but also on the organisations operating the programme, who assume a duty of care over the children participating. Failure to uphold that duty can have liability consequences in civil law, as survivors of abuse and their families may seek compensation for the harms they were exposed to.

Charities and youth groups must comply with strict duties to conduct background checks on those they employ through thorough vetting, risk assessments, escalation procedures and a designated safeguarding lead. Importantly, even when an abuser acts discretely, as in this latest instance, the organisation overseeing events can still be liable if they knew or should have realised there were genuine safeguarding concerns. 

Where an organisation fails to monitor staff or volunteers properly, permits unsafe practices, or ignores early warning signs, it may be liable for negligence or vicarious liability in a civil claim.

Recognising Warning Signs 

In Ruben’s case, he deliberately tampered with the sweets distributed to children in his care. He is believed to have used a ‘sweet game’, entering boys’ dormitories while they were getting ready for bed and encouraging them to eat the sweets ‘as quickly as they can’. Ruben has admitted to charges including one count of sexual abuse against a child under 13, numerous counts of assault by penetration, procuring class C drugs and making indecent images of children. At least eight boys are believed to have been targeted. Devices later seized and analysed also contained indecent images, including more than 50 category A pornographic videos of children.

Tests conducted following his arrest found both incision marks on the sweets and toxicology levels indicating sedatives were contained within. Many children who attended the camps are thought to have shown a pattern of illness after eating the sweets, but it is not clear whether steps to prevent Ruben’s actions were taken, as these signs were either not detected or not acted on by organisers. 

The use of drugs may have isolated and increased the vulnerability of these young children, only exacerbating the seriousness of any potential liability for Ruben’s actions. Safeguarding obligations also imply a duty to prevent situations where a perpetrator can isolate or control children, which raises a question of why Ruben was allowed to enter the boys’ room alone. 

The Importance of Learning from Past Mistakes

Involvement in scouting and guiding activities, religious youth groups and residential camps can offer meaningful experiences for children. It may often be a chance for independence, exploration and adventure. At such an exciting time, children’s trust and vulnerability should be protected, not exploited. 

We hope that the scrutiny on such organisations, following Ruben’s arrest and identification, will reinforce the importance of ensuring quality frameworks and checks are in place before anyone is allowed to work with children. From salaried group leaders down to those working in a voluntary role, the overwhelming majority of people who work with young and vulnerable children hold their best interests at heart. However, when a bad actor is allowed to abuse, it is important their organisation is held to account.