SHOULD JON VENABLES’ PAROLE HEARING BE PUBLIC? JAMES BULGER’S MUM MAKES A FRESH BID FOR TRANSPARENCY

More than 30 years after the murder of two-year-old James Bulger, his mother Denise Fergus has made another attempt to bring greater public scrutiny to the parole process involving Jon Venables.

Denise and her husband, Stuart, have applied for Venables’ forthcoming parole hearing to be held in public.

But there is an important detail:

The hearing has NOT been made public yet.

The Parole Board is currently considering the application and representations before making a decision.

 WHY DOES DENISE WANT IT OPEN?

The application argues that there is significant public interest in the case.

Denise and Stuart say a public hearing could help:

Explain how parole decisions are made

Show how risk is assessed and managed

Address misinformation surrounding the case

Increase confidence in the justice system

They also argue that Venables’ subsequent offending as an adult makes the case exceptional.

For Denise, however, the issue goes far beyond a procedural question.

It is about whether the family can finally feel heard during a process that repeatedly brings the trauma of James’ murder back into their lives.

WHAT WOULD “PUBLIC” ACTUALLY MEAN?

A public hearing would not necessarily mean that every detail becomes available to everyone.

The Parole Board’s own guidance says hearings normally take place privately because witnesses must be able to give open and honest evidence, including evidence concerning sensitive personal and medical matters.

The Board can also consider whether particular portions of a hearing should remain private.

And Venables’ lifelong anonymity protections remain a separate legal issue.

 THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME

A public-hearing application was previously made in connection with Venables’ 2023 parole proceedings.

That application was not granted.

The Parole Board’s October 2023 decision confirmed that the hearing would remain private.

The current application is a new request, not an automatic continuation of that earlier decision.

 WHY THIS CASE REMAINS SO CLOSELY WATCHED

Venables and Robert Thompson were convicted of James Bulger’s murder after abducting the two-year-old in 1993.

Venables was subsequently released on licence but was later recalled to prison twice following further offending.

His parole history has therefore continued to attract intense public attention.

Now Denise Fergus is asking the Parole Board to allow the public to see more of the decision-making process.

 BUT SHOULD THE HEARING ACTUALLY BE OPEN?

That is the question now facing the Parole Board.

There are arguments on both sides.

Those supporting transparency say the exceptional history of the case and the intense public interest justify greater openness.

Those supporting privacy can point to the need for witnesses and the prisoner to give frank evidence, as well as the sensitive material that can arise during a parole assessment. The Board’s rules specifically recognize these concerns.

And ultimately, the Board must decide whether departing from the normal private process is in the interests of justice.

 SHOULD THE PUBLIC BE ALLOWED TO WATCH?

 WOULD TRANSPARENCY HELP RESTORE CONFIDENCE?

 OR DOES A PRIVATE HEARING BETTER PROTECT OPEN AND HONEST EVIDENCE?

For James Bulger’s family, the issue is deeply personal.

For the justice system, it is a question of transparency versus confidentiality.

And now the decision is in the hands of the Parole Board.

Do you think Jon Venables’ parole hearing should be opened to the public?

Independent commentary based on publicly available Parole Board information and court reporting. The application for a public hearing has not itself been granted.