JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY CALLS FOR PUBLIC PAROLE HEARING AS JON VENABLES FACES NEW REVIEW

More than three decades after two-year-old James Bulger was abducted and murdered, his family is once again facing the prospect of a parole review involving one of the men convicted of his killing.

Jon Venables, who was 10 years old when he and Robert Thompson were convicted of James’s 1993 murder, is facing a new parole review.

James’s parents, Denise and Stuart Fergus, have formally applied for the hearing to be held in public, arguing that the exceptional circumstances of the case justify greater transparency.

The application has placed the question of Venables’ anonymity and the secrecy surrounding parole proceedings back into the spotlight.

FAMILY ASKS FOR HEARING TO BE MADE PUBLIC

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

The family argues that the case is exceptional because Venables was subsequently recalled to prison for further offences involving indecent images of children.

They say a public hearing could allow people to better understand how the Parole Board assesses risk, examines professional evidence and makes decisions about public protection.

The application also argues that greater transparency could reduce misinformation surrounding the case and give victims’ families a greater understanding of the decision-making process.

A separate application was submitted by representatives of James’s father Ralph Bulger and uncle Jimmy Bulger, who are also seeking a public hearing.

Their application raises questions about Venables’ original offence, his subsequent offending, previous recalls to custody, anonymity and the management of risk if he were eventually released.

WHY DOES VENABLES HAVE ANONYMITY?

Venables and Thompson were both children when they were convicted of James’s murder.

Following their release on licence in 2001, both were granted lifelong anonymity and new identities.

The protection was intended to safeguard them from vigilante attacks and help manage the risks associated with identifying them publicly.

However, the anonymity order has remained highly controversial, particularly because Venables was later recalled to prison after authorities discovered indecent images of children.

He was first recalled in 2010 and was later released again in 2013. In 2017, he was recalled for a second time after another offence involving indecent images of children.

The anonymity order does not mean Venables is exempt from punishment or parole supervision. Rather, it restricts the publication of information that could identify him.

The legal protection therefore remains separate from the question of whether he should be released.

HIS LAST PAROLE BID WAS REJECTED

Venables’ previous major parole review ended with the Parole Board refusing his release in December 2023.

The panel concluded that it was not satisfied that releasing him at that stage would be safe for the protection of the public.

It also expressed concerns about his ability to be open and honest with professionals and said he still needed to address outstanding risks.

The decision came after a private hearing.

James’s family welcomed the decision at the time, while also expressing concerns about the way information had been handled during the process.

Now, more than two years later, the family has once again been notified of a new parole process. The Independent reported in January 2026 that the next oral hearing was expected to take place after the family was informed of the review.

THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST IS NOT YET DECIDED

The most important point at this stage is that the parole hearing has not automatically become public.

Under Parole Board rules, hearings are normally private. However, victims, prisoners, the media and members of the public can apply for a hearing to be held in public where doing so would be in the interests of justice.

The Board considers factors including the exceptional features of a case, the wishes of victims and the potential emotional impact on those affected. Parts of a hearing can also be held privately if sensitive evidence needs protection.

The Parole Board has invited representations on the applications submitted in Venables’ case.

A decision on whether the hearing will be public has yet to be announced.

A FAMILY FORCED TO FACE THE CASE AGAIN

For James’s family, the new parole review means confronting a case that has shaped their lives since 1993.

James was just two years old when he disappeared from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, on February 12, 1993.

CCTV footage captured Venables and Thompson walking away with him.

The boys were later convicted of murder and detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure, the juvenile equivalent of a life sentence at the time.

Both were eventually released on licence in 2001 under new identities.

For more than three decades, James’s family has continued to campaign for answers, accountability and greater consideration for victims’ families within the justice system.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The immediate question is not whether Venables will be released.

It is whether the Parole Board will allow the public to observe his upcoming hearing.

If the request is granted, safeguards could still be imposed to protect sensitive information and maintain Venables’ anonymity.

If it is refused, the hearing would remain private, although the Board could still consider victim statements and other evidence provided by James’s family.

For now, no final decision has been announced on the public-hearing applications.

What is certain is that the case has once again placed the balance between victims’ rights, public transparency, prisoner rehabilitation and lifelong anonymity at the center of a highly sensitive parole process.