“JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE” — JON VENABLES FACES A NEW PAROLE BATTLE AS JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY DEMANDS TRANSPARENCY

More than three decades after two-year-old James Bulger was killed, the latest parole proceedings involving Jon Venables have reopened painful questions for his family — who are now fighting for the hearing to be opened to the public

More than 30 years after the case that shocked Britain, the name Jon Venables is once again at the center of a major parole battle.

Venables was one of two 10-year-old boys convicted of killing two-year-old James Bulger in Liverpool in 1993.

Now, as another parole review moves forward, James’s family is pushing for something they have never had in this case on this scale: greater transparency.

In August 2026, the Parole Board confirmed that it had received applications asking for Venables’ oral parole hearing to be made public. One application came from James’s parents, Denise and Stuart Fergus, while another was submitted by the legal representatives of James and his brother Ralph Bulger.

The applications argue that the extraordinary history of the case makes it one in which the public should be able to understand how the parole decision is reached.

THE CASE THAT SHOCKED BRITAIN

James Bulger was just two years old when he was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993.

He was subsequently killed by Venables and Robert Thompson, who were both 10 at the time.

The two boys were arrested, prosecuted and convicted, becoming the youngest people convicted of murder in England and Wales in modern times.

Because they were children, the case also became a landmark example of the difficult balance between protecting young offenders and protecting the public.

The boys were eventually released on licence after serving their minimum terms.

But for James’s family, the case did not end with their release.

VENABLES’ RETURN TO CUSTODY

Venables was released on licence in July 2001.

He was later recalled to custody in February 2010 after indecent images of children were found on his computer. He subsequently received a two-year prison sentence for those offences.

He was released again in August 2013.

But in November 2017, he was recalled to custody for a second time after further indecent images of children were discovered on his computer.

For those offences, he received a 40-month prison sentence.

His repeated recalls have become a central part of the concerns surrounding his future release.

The Parole Board’s official records show that a previous review concluded with a negative decision in September 2020.

NOW, THE PAROLE QUESTION IS BACK

The latest proceedings have placed Venables’ future under renewed scrutiny.

The Parole Board’s 2026 material does not announce that Venables has been released or that a release decision has been made.

Instead, it confirms that the parole process is continuing and that applications have been made concerning whether the oral hearing should be open to the public.

That distinction is crucial.

A parole hearing is not a new criminal trial. The central issue for the Parole Board is whether a prisoner can safely be released while protecting the public.

The Board describes its overall priority as public protection and assesses whether prisoners can safely be released. During the 2025/26 reporting year, it decided that 12,528 prisoners should remain in prison for public protection, while 3,140 were released.

DENISE FERGUS WANTS THE PROCESS TO BE SEEN

Denise and Stuart Fergus have argued that the public interest in the case is exceptional.

According to the Parole Board’s published summary, they believe a public hearing could improve understanding of the parole system and help address misinformation surrounding the case.

They also argue that the prisoner should have to confront the consequences of his offending in a public setting, while allowing the decision-making process to be subjected to greater scrutiny.

For James’s family, this is about more than curiosity.

They say transparency could help victims understand how risk is assessed, how release plans are examined and how public safety is considered.

The legal representatives of James and Ralph Bulger have made a separate application supporting a public hearing.

Their submission describes the case as exceptional because of the original killing, Venables’ later sexual offending, his repeated recalls to custody and the complex questions surrounding anonymity, risk management and potential release.

A PREVIOUS BID FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FAILED

This is not the first time transparency has been sought.

In 2023, the Parole Board considered an application to make Venables’ parole hearing public.

That request was rejected.

The official decision, published in October 2023, stated that the Chair of the Parole Board had not granted the application for the public to observe the hearing.

The 2026 application therefore represents another attempt to bring greater openness to a case that has remained under intense public attention for decades.

THE FAMILY’S ARGUMENT

The 2026 application raises an important question:

How can the public have confidence in a parole decision if they cannot see how the most serious issues are examined?

James’s family argues that published summaries alone are not enough.

They want the hearing to show how professional evidence is tested, how risk is assessed and how plans for any potential release would be scrutinized.

At the same time, the application recognises that sensitive information may need to remain private.

The family has proposed safeguards including reporting restrictions, anonymity protections and private sessions for confidential material.

THE SYSTEM HAS ALSO CHANGED

The 2026 parole process is taking place against a backdrop of broader changes to the system.

New rules introduced in 2026 include provisions concerning victims’ participation and observation of parole hearings. The updated rules also introduced additional mechanisms for scrutinising certain release decisions.

Under a separate parole referral mechanism, certain release decisions involving the most serious offences — including murder — can in limited circumstances be referred by the Secretary of State to the High Court for further scrutiny.

These reforms are designed to strengthen public confidence while maintaining the fundamental role of the Parole Board in assessing risk.

JAMES IS STILL AT THE HEART OF THE CASE

For all the legal arguments, the story ultimately returns to the little boy whose name has remained at the center of the case for more than three decades.

James Bulger was two years old when his life was taken.

His family has spent years living with the consequences.

And now, as Jon Venables’ parole process moves forward again, they are asking for something they believe is fundamental:

that the process affecting their family’s future should be as transparent as possible.

The Parole Board has not announced a final release decision in the 2026 proceedings in the material currently available.

For James’s family, however, the battle over transparency is already significant.

After decades of questions, they want the public to be able to see how one of Britain’s most closely watched parole cases is handled — and how the authorities decide whether the man convicted over James’s killing can ever safely return to the community.

For the Bulger family, this is not simply another parole hearing. It is another chapter in a fight that began in 1993 — and one they believe must be handled in full view of the public.