JON VENABLES FACES NEW BID FOR FREEDOM AS JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY FIGHTS TO MAKE PAROLE HEARING PUBLIC

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

Venables, one of the two 10-year-old boys convicted of James’ murder in 1993, is facing another parole hearing as he seeks release from prison.

But this time, James Bulger’s family is also fighting for something they have sought for years — greater transparency over what happens when Venables’ future is considered.

Denise and Stuart Fergus, James’ mother and stepfather, have formally applied for the parole hearing to be held in public.

James’ father, Ralph Bulger, and uncle, Jimmy Bulger, have also submitted an application supporting a public hearing.

ANOTHER PAROLE BID AFTER YEARS BEHIND BARS

Venables was first released on licence in 2001, eight years after he and Robert Thompson were convicted of murdering James.

His return to freedom did not last indefinitely.

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

He was released again in 2013.

Four years later, he was recalled once more after being found in possession of further indecent images of children.

His most recent parole bid was rejected in 2023.

At that time, the Parole Board concluded that he continued to present a risk and could potentially commit further offences involving children.

Now, after another period in custody, he is eligible for the process to be considered again.

The latest hearing was announced in January 2026, although the Parole Board had not initially released an exact hearing date.

JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY WANTS THE HEARING OPEN

The latest parole process has been particularly painful for James’ family.

Denise and Stuart Fergus have argued that the case has exceptional public interest and that a public hearing could provide greater confidence that parole decisions are being made through a rigorous and evidence-based process.

They also say that the public should be able to understand how decisions concerning Venables are reached.

A separate application from James’ father Ralph and uncle Jimmy argues that the case raises wider questions about public protection, Venables’ later offending, his repeated recalls to custody, anonymity arrangements and the management of risk.

They have proposed a hybrid hearing, allowing sensitive or confidential material to be dealt with privately while other parts could be observed publicly.

THE PUBLIC HEARING QUESTION IS STILL UNRESOLVED

The application does not mean that the parole hearing has already been approved for public viewing.

Under Parole Board rules, hearings normally take place in private.

A public hearing can be permitted in exceptional circumstances when the Chair considers that it is in the interests of justice.

The Parole Board’s official records show that the Venables application remains listed among pending applications for public hearings.

That distinction is important.

There are therefore two separate questions:

Will Venables be released?

And:

Will the public be allowed to observe the hearing in which that decision is considered?

Neither should be confused with the other.

VENABLES’ IDENTITY REMAINS PROTECTED

One of the most controversial aspects of the case remains Venables’ anonymity.

Because he and Thompson were only 10 years old when they murdered James, lifelong anonymity protections have been maintained to prevent them from being identified publicly.

The restrictions have remained controversial because of Venables’ later offending and repeated recalls to custody.

The application from James’ family specifically identifies anonymity and risk management as issues of wider public interest.

However, the existence of a parole hearing does not itself remove those protections.

Any decision concerning anonymity would involve separate legal considerations.

THE 1993 MURDER THAT SHOCKED BRITAIN

James Bulger was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, on February 12, 1993.

Venables and Thompson, both aged 10, were convicted of his murder.

The case became one of the most widely remembered criminal cases in modern British history, in part because of the extraordinarily young ages of the offenders.

For James’ family, however, the case has never become simply history.

Every new parole application brings the possibility of another painful confrontation with the events of 1993.

HIS 2023 PAROLE BID WAS REJECTED

Venables’ previous major parole battle ended in December 2023 when the Parole Board decided that he should remain in prison.

The panel was concerned about continuing issues relating to his sexual offending and warned of potential future risks.

His release was therefore refused at that stage.

For Denise Fergus, the decision brought a measure of relief after years of fearing that Venables could return to the community.

But the parole system allows eligible prisoners to be reviewed again in the future.

That is why another hearing has now brought the case back into public attention.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Parole Board will consider evidence about Venables’ current circumstances and whether any risk he presents can safely be managed in the community.

A parole hearing is not a retrial of the original murder conviction.

Nor does the fact that Venables is having another parole review mean that he will automatically be released.

The separate application for a public hearing must also be determined.

The Parole Board’s official rules state that its Chair decides whether a parole hearing should be made public.

For James Bulger’s family, however, the issue goes beyond a single parole decision.

It is about whether they will once again have to confront the process largely behind closed doors — or whether the public will be allowed to see how one of Britain’s most notorious parole cases is considered.

For more than 33 years, James Bulger’s name has remained at the heart of the case.

Now, once again, attention has turned to the Parole Board — with Venables’ future, the family’s demand for transparency and the question of public scrutiny all hanging over the next stage.