“HE MUST NEVER BE FREE AGAIN” — JAMES BULGER’S MOTHER MAKES NEW MOVE OVER JON VENABLES PAROLE

More than 30 years after two-year-old James Bulger was murdered, his mother Denise Fergus is once again facing the painful reality of another parole process involving Jon Venables. This time, however, the family is demanding something different: greater transparency over the decision that could determine what happens next.

THREE DECADES LATER, THE PAIN REMAINS

James Bulger was only two years old when he was abducted and murdered in Merseyside in 1993.

The crime became one of the most notorious child murder cases in British history.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10 at the time, were convicted of James’ murder.

For Denise Fergus, the case did not end with the convictions.

Every parole hearing has brought the possibility of Venables’ potential return to the community back into her life.

And now, another parole process is approaching.

DENISE FERGUS WANTS THE PUBLIC TO SEE THE PROCESS

Denise Fergus and her husband Stuart have formally asked the Parole Board to allow Venables’ forthcoming parole hearing to take place in public.

The request has been confirmed by the Parole Board, which has invited representations before making its decision.

The family’s argument is largely about transparency, accountability and public confidence.

They believe the extraordinary circumstances of the case justify allowing greater scrutiny of the parole process.

For Denise, the issue is deeply personal.

The possibility of Venables being considered for release inevitably brings back memories of the son she lost.

WHY VENABLES’ HISTORY MATTERS

Venables was released from youth custody in 2001 under strict licence conditions.

But his life outside prison later resulted in two separate recalls.

In 2010, he was returned to custody after indecent images of children were discovered.

He was released again before being recalled for a second time in 2017 after another offence involving indecent images of children.

Those subsequent convictions have become a major part of the public debate surrounding his suitability for release.

HIS LAST PAROLE BID DID NOT END IN FREEDOM

Venables’ previous parole application was rejected in 2023.

The Parole Board concluded that it could not be satisfied that releasing him would be safe for the protection of the public.

The panel considered concerns surrounding his risk, his openness with professionals and the rehabilitation work still required.

But that decision belongs to the previous parole process.

It does not mean that the current 2026 application has already been rejected.

THE CLAIMS SPREADING ONLINE

Some social-media posts have claimed that Venables has already suffered a dramatic defeat and that a previously undisclosed piece of evidence “destroyed” his latest freedom bid.

There is currently no reliable public confirmation of such a final outcome.

That distinction matters.

Parole decisions are based on evidence assessed by the independent panel, and details of private proceedings are not automatically made public.

Until the current process reaches a confirmed decision, claims about what happened inside the hearing room should be treated carefully.

WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THE HEARING IS MADE PUBLIC?

A public hearing would not necessarily mean that every detail surrounding Venables would be revealed.

Legal protections surrounding his identity remain significant.

Even if the Parole Board approves the family’s request, measures could potentially be used to protect anonymity and prevent identifying information from being disclosed.

The purpose would be greater scrutiny of the decision-making process, rather than turning the hearing into a public spectacle.

THE FAMILY’S ARGUMENT

For Denise and Stuart Fergus, the question is not simply whether Venables should be released.

They want the public to understand how the authorities reach such a decision.

Why is an offender who has already been recalled to prison twice being considered again?

What evidence is being examined?

What rehabilitation has taken place?

And, most importantly, what assessment has been made of the risk to the public?

These are questions the family believes deserve greater transparency.

A DECISION IS STILL AHEAD

The Parole Board has not announced that Venables has been permanently denied release.

The current process is still developing.

The immediate issue is whether the forthcoming parole hearing should be opened to the public.

The hearing itself is not expected before September 2026.

Until then, both the family and the public are left waiting.

“JUSTICE” DOES NOT ALWAYS COME IN ONE MOMENT

For more than three decades, Denise Fergus has had to live with a tragedy that changed her life forever.

There has been a conviction.

There have been releases.

There have been recalls.

There have been further offences.

And now there is another parole process.

But this time, Denise is asking for something beyond a simple yes-or-no decision.

She wants people to see how the decision is made.

James was two years old.

Venables has previously been released and later recalled to prison twice.

His latest parole process is now under renewed scrutiny.

And James’ mother wants the next stage to be as transparent as possible.

The question is no longer simply “Will Jon Venables be released?”

It is also:

“Should the public be allowed to see how that decision is reached?”