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

More than three decades after the murder of two-year-old James Bulger, his family is once again facing the prospect of a parole process involving Jon Venables, one of the two boys convicted of killing him.

Venables, who was 10 when James was abducted and murdered in 1993, is due to have his latest bid for release considered by the Parole Board.

But this time, James’s mother Denise Fergus is seeking something different: greater transparency over the process.

The Parole Board has confirmed that it has received an application from Denise and her husband Stuart Fergus asking for the parole hearing to be held in public.

A separate application has also been submitted by lawyers representing James’s father, Ralph Bulger, and uncle, Jimmy Bulger.

DENISE FERGUS WANTS THE HEARING OPENED

The applications argue that the case is exceptional and carries significant public interest.

Denise Fergus’s application says a public hearing could improve understanding of how parole decisions are made and help address misinformation surrounding the case.

It also argues that transparency would allow the family and other victims to better understand how evidence, professional opinions, risk and release plans are examined.

The application further points to Venables’ later offending as an important part of the public-interest argument.

However, the request for a public hearing is not the same thing as a request for parole itself.

The Parole Board’s rules state that parole hearings normally remain private. A hearing can be made public only if the Chair decides that doing so is in the interests of justice.

VENABLES HAS BEEN RELEASED AND RECALLED BEFORE

Venables and Robert Thompson were both 10 when they abducted James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993.

They were subsequently convicted of murder.

Venables was released on licence in 2001.

He was later recalled to prison in 2010 after child sexual abuse material was found on his computer.

He was released again in 2013, but was recalled in 2017 following another conviction relating to indecent images of children.

His previous parole review in 2023 ended with the Parole Board refusing release.

The panel said it was not satisfied that releasing him at that stage would be safe for the protection of the public. It also identified concerns about his ability to be open and honest with professionals and said further work was required to address outstanding risks.

A NEW PAROLE REVIEW

The latest parole process comes more than two years after that decision.

The Independent reported in January that the new hearing would reopen what a spokesperson for James’s family described as “unimaginable trauma” for his loved ones.

Denise Fergus has been granted permission to observe the upcoming hearing, although observing a private hearing is very different from having the proceedings opened to the public.

The exact outcome of the family’s application for a public hearing is therefore an important outstanding issue.

The official Parole Board records currently list the Jon Venables public-hearing application as pending.

WHY VENABLES’ IDENTITY REMAINS PROTECTED

Another major issue surrounding the case is anonymity.

Because Venables and Thompson were children when they committed the murder, a longstanding legal injunction protects their identities.

The Parole Board’s previous decision explained that the injunction, originally made in 2001 and subsequently extended for their lifetimes, makes it unlawful to publish information likely to identify them under their current identities.

That protection has remained in place even as the case has returned repeatedly to the parole system.

The anonymity order does not erase the public record of the crime or the legal proceedings surrounding it.

But it does restrict publication of information that could identify Venables under the identity he has used since leaving childhood.

THE 2023 PUBLIC-HEARING REQUEST

This is not the first time the question of transparency has arisen.

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

The Chair of the Parole Board rejected that application.

The Board said at the time that the hearing would remain private.

The new application comes under rules that allow victims and others involved in a case to seek a public hearing where they believe openness is in the interests of justice.

The Parole Board says its normal position remains that hearings should be private because witnesses must be able to give evidence openly and honestly.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The immediate question is not whether Venables will automatically be released.

The Parole Board must first consider his case and assess whether any risk he presents can be safely managed in the community.

Separately, the Chair must decide whether the parole hearing itself should be opened to the public.

The applications from James Bulger’s family argue that transparency would allow the public to better understand how the Board assesses risk and reaches its decisions.

They also argue that greater openness could reduce uncertainty and misinformation surrounding the case.

For Denise Fergus, the process has become another chapter in a story that began when her two-year-old son disappeared in 1993.

For the Parole Board, the central issue remains the legal assessment of risk and whether any release could be safely managed.

And for the wider public, the case continues to raise difficult questions about parole, anonymity, transparency and the long-term consequences of crimes committed by children.

For now, the application for a public hearing remains unresolved.

And after more than 30 years, James Bulger’s family is once again waiting to see how the next chapter will unfold.