30+ YEARS LATER — JON VENABLES FACES ANOTHER MAJOR PAROLE BATTLE

More than three decades after the killing of toddler James Bulger, a new fight is unfolding over whether the public should finally be allowed to see inside Jon Venables’ next parole hearing.

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

This time, the question is not simply whether he could eventually be released.

It is whether the public should be allowed to watch the process that determines what happens next.

In August 2026, the Parole Board confirmed it had received two separate applications asking for Venables’ next parole hearing to be held in public.

One application was submitted by Denise and Stuart Fergus.

A second was made by the legal representatives of James Bulger’s father, Ralph Bulger, and other parties connected to the case.

But there is a crucial distinction:

The applications have been submitted — the hearing has NOT yet been approved as public, and there has been no announcement that Venables is being released.

WHY ARE THEY ASKING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING?

The applicants argue that the extraordinary history of the case makes greater transparency necessary.

Denise and Stuart Fergus say the case continues to generate intense public interest and extensive discussion on social media.

They argue that allowing the public to observe the hearing could help counter misinformation, explain how parole decisions are made and increase confidence in the system.

They also point to Venables’ subsequent offending as an adult as an exceptional feature of the case.

The applicants say a public hearing would allow victims and the wider public to better understand how the Parole Board assesses risk and decides whether someone can safely be managed in the community.

The legal representatives of James Bulger’s family have made a separate application with similar concerns.

Their submission describes the case as exceptional because it involves the killing of a child by children, Venables’ later sexual offending, repeated recalls to custody and complex questions surrounding anonymity, risk management and potential release arrangements.

They argue that simply allowing observers into a private hearing would not provide the same level of transparency.

Instead, they have suggested that sensitive evidence could be dealt with privately while other parts of the proceedings are opened to public observation.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME

The issue of a public parole hearing is not new.

In 2023, an application was also made for Venables’ parole hearing to be opened to the public.

The Parole Board rejected that request in October 2023.

The Board said the application to make that hearing public had not been granted.

Under current Parole Board rules, hearings normally remain private.

A public hearing can be ordered when the Chair determines that opening the proceedings is in the interests of justice.

The Board can consider factors including public interest, the wishes and wellbeing of victims, the prisoner’s welfare and safety, the sensitivity of evidence and whether a public hearing could interfere with witnesses giving open and honest evidence.

WHAT ABOUT VENABLES’ RELEASE?

That is where the story becomes especially important.

A request to make a parole hearing public does not mean the prisoner will be released.

The Parole Board’s role is to determine whether a prisoner’s risk can be safely managed in the community.

If the Board is not satisfied that release would be safe, the prisoner remains in custody and can be considered again at a later stage.

Venables was previously refused release in 2023 after the Parole Board concluded it was not satisfied that releasing him would be safe for public protection.

That decision came after concerns about his risk management and behaviour while in custody.

A CASE THAT NEVER LEFT THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS

The case dates back to February 1993, when two-year-old James Bulger was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside.

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 has remained subject to exceptional legal protections surrounding their identities.

Venables later returned to prison after being convicted of possessing indecent images of children, leading to renewed scrutiny over his risk and whether he could ever safely live in the community.

That history is now central to the arguments for greater transparency.

THE NEXT DECISION

The Parole Board invited written representations on the 2026 public-hearing applications.

The deadline for representations concerning the application from Denise and Stuart Fergus was August 14, 2026.

The deadline for representations concerning the application submitted on behalf of James Bulger’s family was September 10, 2026.

The Chair of the Parole Board will ultimately decide whether the hearing should be made public.

There is no automatic right for a parole hearing to be opened simply because there is substantial public interest.

And until the Board announces its decision, the outcome remains unknown.

For a case that has remained one of Britain’s most closely watched criminal justice stories for more than three decades, however, one question is now back in the spotlight:

Could the public finally get to see how the parole system decides what happens to Jon Venables next?