JAMES BULGER’S MUM MAKES FRESH BID TO OPEN JON VENABLES’ PAROLE HEARING TO THE PUBLIC

More than three decades after the murder of two-year-old James Bulger, his mother Denise Fergus is once again seeking greater transparency over the future of Jon Venables.

Fergus and her husband, Stuart, have submitted a fresh application asking for Venables’ forthcoming parole hearing to be held in public, arguing that the exceptional history of the case and the continuing public interest justify greater scrutiny.

The application does not mean the hearing will automatically become public.

The Parole Board must first consider the application and any objections before making a decision.

WHY IS DENISE FERGUS ASKING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING?

For Denise, the issue is about more than simply whether Venables should be released.

She has argued that a public hearing would provide greater transparency and allow the public to understand how such an important parole decision is reached.

The case remains one of Britain’s most closely watched parole cases because Venables was one of the two 10-year-old boys convicted of abducting and murdering James Bulger in 1993.

Venables was later released under licence but was subsequently recalled to custody on two occasions after further convictions involving indecent images of children. He has remained in prison since his second recall in 2017.

VENABLES HAS PREVIOUSLY FOUGHT FOR PRIVACY

The question of whether the public should be allowed to observe Venables’ parole proceedings is not new.

In 2023, an application was made for his parole hearing to be held publicly.

The Parole Board rejected that application.

The Board’s decision explained that the hearing would remain private and that a public hearing was not justified in the circumstances at that time.

The current application is therefore a fresh attempt, rather than a continuation of an already-approved public hearing.

WHAT ABOUT VENABLES’ IDENTITY?

Even if the new application succeeds, it would not automatically mean that Venables’ identity, location or new identity could legally be published.

His anonymity remains protected by a lifelong injunction.

Any public hearing could therefore involve measures designed to protect his identity and other sensitive information. Reports on the current application say measures such as screens or voice protection could be considered if necessary.

That means:

Public hearing ≠ public identification.

The public could potentially observe proceedings while legally protected information remained concealed.

 WHY IS THIS CASE DIFFERENT FROM AN ORDINARY PAROLE HEARING?

Parole hearings in England and Wales are normally held privately.

The Parole Board’s current guidance says a public hearing can be requested, but the Chair must balance competing interests and decide whether departing from the normal private process is justified in the interests of justice.

Factors can include the level of public interest, transparency, the interests of victims and whether parts of the hearing would need to remain private.

The Board’s transparency rules were also updated in 2026, with members of the press and public now able to make representations after a public-hearing application is received.

 JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY STILL WANTS ANSWERS

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

The case permanently changed the lives of his family.

For Denise Fergus, every parole process involving Venables inevitably reopens questions surrounding her son’s death and the subsequent decisions about his release.

Her latest application represents another attempt to ensure that the parole process receives greater public scrutiny.

James’ father, Ralph Bulger, has also reportedly expressed an interest in attending if a public hearing is eventually approved.

 VENABLES CAN OBJECT

The current reports indicate that Venables has been given an opportunity to object to the application.

That is part of the normal legal process: the Parole Board must consider representations from the parties before deciding whether a hearing should be opened to the public.

The decision therefore remains outstanding.

 WHEN COULD THE HEARING TAKE PLACE?

The forthcoming parole review is not expected to take place before September 2026.

But that should not be interpreted as a confirmed hearing date.

First, the question of whether the hearing itself will be public must be decided.

THE BIGGER QUESTION

This latest move brings an old argument back into focus:

How much transparency should the public have when a parole decision concerns one of Britain’s most notorious criminal cases?

Denise Fergus wants the process opened to greater public scrutiny.

Venables has historically sought privacy and continues to benefit from legal protections surrounding his identity.

The Parole Board must now weigh those competing interests.

DENISE FERGUS HAS MADE A FRESH APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PAROLE BOARD HAS NOT YET DECIDED WHETHER TO GRANT IT.

VENABLES’ ANONYMITY REMAINS LEGALLY PROTECTED.

A PAROLE REVIEW IS NOT EXPECTED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 2026.

AND AFTER MORE THAN 30 YEARS, THE BULGER FAMILY IS STILL SEEKING ANSWERS AND TRANSPARENCY.

For Denise Fergus, this is not simply another procedural hearing.

It is another moment in a decades-long struggle over justice, public confidence, victim rights and the future of the man convicted of killing her son.

This post is based on publicly reported information and official Parole Board material. The application for a public hearing is not a decision to grant one, and Venables’ legally protected identity should not be published.