30+ YEARS LATER — JON VENABLES IS BACK AT THE CENTER OF A NEW PAROLE BATTLE

JAMES BULGER’S MOTHER DENISE FERGUS IS PUSHING FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY AS A NEW PAROLE PROCESS BRINGS ONE OF BRITAIN’S MOST INFAMOUS CASES BACK INTO THE SPOTLIGHT

More than three decades after the murder of two-year-old James Bulger shocked Britain, the case involving Jon Venables is once again at the center of a major parole battle.

But this time, the fight is not simply about whether Venables could eventually be released.

It is also about how much of the parole process the public should be allowed to see.

In August 2026, the Parole Board confirmed that it had received applications from Denise and Stuart Fergus seeking to have Venables’ parole hearing held in public.

The application argues that the case remains a matter of significant public interest and that greater transparency could help address misinformation surrounding the case and give victims’ families a clearer understanding of how the parole process works.

And for Denise Fergus, James’s mother, the issue carries a deeply personal weight.

A CASE THAT NEVER REALLY LEFT THE HEADLINES

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

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

The case became one of the most notorious crimes in modern British history, partly because of the age of the two offenders and the extraordinary public reaction that followed.

Both boys were eventually released from custody in 2001 under new identities.

But Venables later returned to prison after being convicted of possessing child-abuse images. He was released again before being recalled to custody and was convicted a second time in 2017.

Those later convictions became a major factor in the continuing debate over whether he should ever be released again.

THE LAST MAJOR PAROLE DECISION

Venables previously faced a parole hearing in 2023.

That process ultimately ended with the Parole Board refusing his release.

The Board said it was not satisfied that his release would be safe for the protection of the public, according to reporting on the decision. Concerns included unresolved risk factors and his engagement with professionals.

The decision meant Venables remained in prison.

But a refusal of parole does not necessarily end the process permanently.

The Parole Board explains that where a prisoner is not released because the risk cannot safely be managed in the community, the case can return for consideration again in due course.

And that is why the case remains under scrutiny years later.

DENISE FERGUS WANTS THE PROCESS OPENED UP

In August, the Parole Board revealed that Denise and Stuart Fergus had applied for Venables’ hearing to be held in public.

Their application cited the enormous public interest surrounding the case, continuing social-media discussion and concerns about misinformation.

They also argued that greater transparency could help victims and the wider public understand how decisions about risk, supervision and release are actually made.

The application said that, if granted, a public hearing could allow the family to feel that they had finally been listened to.

A separate application was also submitted by legal representatives for Jimmy Bulger and Ralph Bulger, James’s uncle and father.

That application similarly argued that the extraordinary history of the case made it appropriate for greater public scrutiny. It pointed to issues including Venables’ subsequent offending, previous recalls to custody, anonymity and the management of future risk.

BUT THE HEARING IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY GOING PUBLIC

There is an important distinction.

The Parole Board has not yet announced that Venables’ hearing will be public.

The August announcement was about applications seeking to make the hearing public.

The Board’s rules generally provide for parole hearings to remain private, although victims can apply to observe them. Since March 2026, the Board has also invited public representations when an application is made for a hearing to be opened to the public.

The deadline for representations on the Fergus application was August 14.

For the separate application made on behalf of Jimmy and Ralph Bulger, the deadline was 3 p.m. on September 10, 2026.

The Board will then have to weigh arguments for transparency against issues such as Venables’ safety, privacy, anonymity, the fairness of the proceedings and the ability of witnesses to give evidence freely.

THIS HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE

There is also a striking precedent.

In 2023, an application to make Venables’ parole hearing public was rejected.

The Parole Board said the hearing should remain private, citing concerns including the protection of Venables’ identity and the possibility that sensitive information could inadvertently lead to his identification.

That earlier decision makes the 2026 application particularly significant.

The question is now whether circumstances have changed enough for the Board to take a different approach.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

For now, there is no confirmed decision that Venables will be released.

There is also no confirmed decision that the parole hearing itself will be opened to the public.

What is clear is that the case has entered another important stage — one involving not only Venables’ future, but also a continuing debate over transparency, public protection and the rights of victims’ families.

More than 30 years after James Bulger’s murder, his mother remains at the center of that debate.

And the question surrounding Jon Venables is once again back in the spotlight:

WILL THE NEXT PAROLE PROCESS BRING A DIFFERENT OUTCOME — OR WILL THE BOARD DECIDE THAT THE RISK IS STILL TOO GREAT?

Any future parole decision will be based on the evidence and risk assessment before the Parole Board. A parole application or hearing does not itself mean that release will be granted.