JON VENABLES FACES FRESH PAROLE BID AS JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY FIGHTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING

Jon Venables is facing another parole hearing more than three decades after the murder of two-year-old James Bulger, while James’s family is making a fresh push for greater transparency over the process.

Venables, who was 10 when James was killed in 1993, is being considered for release again after spending years in custody following later convictions for offences involving indecent images of children.

The latest parole process has also reignited a long-running dispute over whether the public should be allowed to observe the hearing.

James’s mother, Denise Fergus, and her husband, Stuart, have formally applied for the hearing to be held in public. A separate application has also been made on behalf of James’s father, Ralph Bulger, and his uncle, Jimmy Bulger.

The applications are currently before the Parole Board. No decision has yet been announced on whether the hearing will be opened to the public.

A NEW BID FOR FREEDOM

Venables, now 43, is seeking release after a previous parole application was rejected in 2023.

The Parole Board ruled at the time that it was not satisfied that releasing him would be safe for the protection of the public.

The panel raised concerns about his ability to be open and honest with professionals and identified continuing risks associated with his sexual preoccupation and previous offending.

His latest hearing comes more than two years after that decision.

The Parole Board’s role is to assess whether a prisoner can safely be released into the community. Panels consider evidence including behaviour in prison, proposed release arrangements, previous offending, psychological and psychiatric evidence, and the risk of further offending.

A parole hearing does not automatically mean that release will be granted.

THE MURDER THAT SHOCKED BRITAIN

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

Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10, were convicted of murdering him.

The boys were the youngest people to have stood trial for murder in the UK.

They were released on licence in 2001 after spending eight years in secure accommodation and were given new identities under lifelong anonymity protections because of their ages at the time of the offence.

While Thompson has remained out of custody, Venables has returned to prison after subsequent offending.

TWO FURTHER RECALLS TO PRISON

Venables was first recalled to prison in 2010 after indecent images of children were found on his computer.

He was released again in 2013.

In 2017, he was recalled for a second offence involving indecent images of children and has remained in custody since then.

Those later offences have become a central part of the debate surrounding his latest parole review.

The Parole Board must consider not only the circumstances of the original offence but also the progress made during custody and the risk presented by any future release.

JAMES’S FAMILY WANTS THE HEARING OPENED

For Denise Fergus, the latest parole process has once again brought back memories of her son’s death.

She has attended previous parole proceedings and has spoken publicly about the emotional toll of repeatedly confronting the possibility of Venables being released.

In January, she said she was preparing to attend the latest hearing and criticised the fact that Venables’ identity and circumstances remain protected while she continues to campaign for justice for James.

The family’s latest applications go beyond simply asking to observe the hearing.

The Parole Board’s published summary says Denise and Stuart Fergus argue that a public hearing could improve understanding of the parole system, address misinformation surrounding the case and allow greater scrutiny of how risk is assessed.

They also argue that the case is exceptional because of the original murder, Venables’ later offending, his repeated recalls to custody and the complex issues surrounding anonymity and public protection.

WHY THE HEARING IS NORMALLY PRIVATE

Parole hearings in England and Wales are generally held in private.

However, victims or other eligible parties can apply for a hearing to be made public.

Under current Parole Board guidance, an application must establish why departing from the normal private process would be in the interests of justice.

The Chair can consider factors including the special features of a case, the wishes of victims and the possibility of emotional distress or retraumatisation.

Parts of a hearing can also potentially be held privately if sensitive evidence needs to be protected.

In Venables’ case, the applications argue that a hybrid arrangement could protect sensitive information while still allowing meaningful public scrutiny.

ANONYMITY REMAINS IN PLACE

One of the most unusual aspects of the case is the continuing protection of Venables’ identity.

Because he was only 10 when James was murdered, lifelong anonymity protections remain in force.

The purpose of those protections is connected to his age at the time of the offence and the legal framework surrounding children convicted of serious crimes.

For James’s family, however, that protection has long been a source of frustration.

The family’s application argues that transparency around the parole process is particularly important given the exceptional history of the case.

A public hearing would not necessarily mean that Venables’ identity could legally be revealed. Anonymity protections and reporting restrictions could remain in place even if members of the public were allowed to observe proceedings.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Parole Board is considering the applications for a public hearing before deciding whether the case should be opened to observers.

The Board has stated that public hearings are an exception to the usual private process and must be justified on the grounds of the interests of justice.

Separately, Venables’ parole case itself still has to be determined.

If the panel concludes that the risk he presents can be safely managed in the community, release could potentially be authorised, subject to the applicable legal process.

If the panel is not satisfied that release is safe, he will remain in custody.

His previous parole application was rejected in 2023 after the panel identified outstanding concerns about risk.

A CASE THAT CONTINUES TO REOPEN OLD WOUNDS

More than 30 years after James Bulger was taken from a shopping centre and murdered, his case continues to generate intense public interest.

For Venables, the latest proceedings represent another stage in a long-running parole process.

For James’s family, they bring another difficult confrontation with the possibility of his release — and another effort to ensure that the process surrounding that decision is as transparent as the law allows.

For now, no decision has been made on whether Venables will be released, and no final decision has been announced on whether the parole hearing will be public.

The next stage will determine how much of the proceedings the public — and James’s family — will ultimately be allowed to see.