“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 killing of two-year-old James Bulger shocked Britain, the case surrounding Jon Venables has entered another highly sensitive chapter.

This time, the focus is not on a new criminal trial — but on transparency, public protection and whether the next parole hearing should be allowed to take place in public.

The Parole Board for England and Wales has received applications seeking to make Venables’ parole hearing public.

One application was submitted by Denise and Stuart Fergus, while another was made by legal representatives for James Bulger and Ralph Bulger. The applications argue that the extraordinary history of the case and subsequent events justify greater public scrutiny.

A CASE THAT HAS NEVER LEFT THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS

In 1993, James Bulger was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside.

His body was later discovered on railway tracks.

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

Because they were children when the offence occurred, the case became one of the most closely watched juvenile criminal cases in British history.

The identities of both offenders were initially protected, and Venables has remained subject to lifelong anonymity protections.

The Parole Board has previously emphasized that its central responsibility is to assess whether a prisoner’s risk can be safely managed in the community.

THEN CAME THE LATER OFFENCES

The controversy did not end with Venables’ original conviction.

He was released from custody in 2001 under a new identity.

He was later recalled to prison after indecent images of children were found on his computer, resulting in another period of imprisonment.

He was released again in 2013.

In 2017, he was recalled once more after further indecent images were discovered.

Those subsequent convictions and recalls have become a major part of the argument for greater transparency in the latest parole proceedings.

The applicants say the case is exceptional because it involves not only the original killing of a child but also later offending, repeated recalls and complex questions surrounding anonymity, risk assessment and release arrangements.

“JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE”

The latest applications argue that a public hearing could help people understand how the Parole Board assesses risk and reaches decisions.

The legal representatives for James Bulger and Ralph Bulger say that simply allowing observers to attend a private hearing would not provide the same level of transparency.

They argue that a public hearing could allow greater scrutiny of evidence, professional assessments, release planning and public-protection measures.

They have also suggested that sensitive material could still be handled privately, allowing a hearing to operate partly in public and partly behind closed doors.

For the families involved, however, the issue is about more than procedure.

It is also about confidence.

The applicants argue that greater transparency could help address misinformation surrounding the case and give victims a clearer understanding of how parole decisions are made.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME

The push for a public hearing is not new.

In 2023, an earlier application to make Venables’ parole hearing public was rejected by the Chair of the Parole Board.

The decision was published on October 25, 2023, and confirmed that the hearing would remain private.

But the parole system has since changed.

From March 2026, the Parole Board introduced a revised process allowing members of the public and the press to make representations when an application is made for a parole hearing to become public.

The Board says such representations are considered when the Chair decides whether the interests of justice justify departing from the normal rule of private hearings.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

The latest applications do not mean that Venables’ hearing has already been made public.

The Parole Board must consider the representations before deciding whether the hearing should be opened.

The Board’s rules require the Chair to balance several competing factors, including public interest, the wishes and vulnerability of the prisoner, safety concerns, emotional impact, confidentiality and the need for witnesses to give their best evidence.

As of now, there has been no announcement that Venables’ parole hearing will definitely be public.

And there has been no announcement of a new release decision arising from the current application.

THE QUESTIONS ARE NOW BIGGER THAN ONE HEARING

For James Bulger’s family, the latest proceedings revive memories of a case that changed Britain’s understanding of children, criminal responsibility and public protection.

For the Parole Board, the challenge is different.

It must determine whether greater transparency is justified while also protecting confidential information and the safety and welfare of everyone involved.

The applicants argue that this is precisely why the case deserves exceptional scrutiny.

More than three decades after James Bulger’s killing, the central question is no longer simply what happened in 1993.

It is whether the public should be allowed to see how the system now assesses the risk surrounding a prisoner whose case has remained one of Britain’s most controversial parole stories.

THE FIGHT FOR TRANSPARENCY HAS BEGUN — BUT THE FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER THE HEARING WILL BE PUBLIC STILL BELONGS TO THE PAROLE BOARD.