JON VENABLES FACES FRESH PAROLE BATTLE AS JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY PUSHES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Jon Venables is facing another parole review more than three decades after the murder of two-year-old James Bulger, while James’s parents are pushing for greater transparency over the process.

Venables, who was 10 when he and Robert Thompson abducted and murdered James Bulger in Merseyside in 1993, is now 43 and remains in prison.

His latest parole case is being considered by the Parole Board, with the proceedings expected to examine whether he can safely be released into the community.

But this time, James’s parents, Denise Fergus and Stuart Fergus, are seeking to have the parole hearing opened to the public.

The Parole Board confirmed in August 2026 that it had received an application from Denise and Stuart Fergus asking for the hearing to be held in public.

The application argues that the exceptional circumstances of the case, Venables’ later offending as an adult and the long-running questions surrounding risk assessment and anonymity justify greater transparency.

FAMILY WANTS THE HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

According to the official application published by the Parole Board, Denise and Stuart argue that a public hearing could improve understanding of how parole decisions are made and help address misinformation surrounding the case.

They also say that transparency would allow them to better understand how evidence, risk and release arrangements are examined.

The application refers to Venables’ subsequent serious offending as an adult and his repeated recalls to custody as factors that, in their view, make the case exceptional.

The family has also argued that a public hearing could help demonstrate that parole decisions are subject to rigorous scrutiny.

However, no decision has yet been made to hold the hearing publicly.

Under Parole Board rules, hearings normally remain private. A public hearing can only be authorised where the Chair determines that doing so is in the interests of justice. Parts of a hearing may also remain private where sensitive or confidential evidence is involved.

VENABLES’ LATER OFFENDING

Venables and Thompson were convicted of James Bulger’s murder after abducting the toddler from a shopping centre in Bootle in February 1993.

Both boys were sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure and were later released under new identities.

Venables was first released in 2001.

He was subsequently recalled to prison on two occasions after being found in possession of indecent images of children. Those later offences have become an important part of discussions surrounding his parole and risk management.

His previous parole bid was rejected in 2023.

At that time, the Parole Board decided that he remained unsuitable for release. The latest review comes more than two years after that decision.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST FIGHT OVER A PUBLIC HEARING

The question of whether Venables’ parole proceedings should be made public has been raised before.

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

The Parole Board rejected that application in October 2023, meaning the hearing remained private.

The current application is therefore a fresh attempt to bring greater public scrutiny to the parole process.

The Parole Board’s rules allow victims, prisoners, members of the public or the media to apply for a hearing to be made public, although the normal position remains that parole hearings are private.

ANONYMITY REMAINS A CENTRAL ISSUE

Venables has been protected by lifelong anonymity because of the circumstances surrounding his conviction as a child.

His identity and whereabouts have been subject to strict legal protections designed to prevent him being identified publicly.

The current application acknowledges the tension between those protections and the family’s desire for greater transparency.

The Fergus family argues that safeguards could still be maintained through measures such as reporting restrictions, private sessions and other protections for sensitive information.

The application also says that a public hearing could allow confidential evidence to remain private while permitting the wider public to observe parts of the proceedings.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Parole Board must consider the applications for a public hearing before deciding whether the proceedings can be opened to observers.

The Board has stated that it will balance competing factors, including public interest, the wishes of victims, potential emotional harm, the prisoner’s safety and the need for witnesses to give evidence openly and honestly.

A decision to make the hearing public would not mean that Venables had been granted parole.

The public-hearing question and the parole decision are separate issues.

The eventual parole panel will have to consider evidence about Venables’ current risk and whether any risk can be safely managed in the community.

For Denise Fergus, however, the latest proceedings represent another chapter in a decades-long fight to understand decisions surrounding the man responsible for the death of her young son.

James Bulger was only two years old when he was taken from his family in 1993.

More than 30 years later, his case continues to raise difficult questions about rehabilitation, public protection, anonymity and how the parole system should balance transparency with the rights and safety of those involved.