JON VENABLES’ PAROLE HEARING SHOULD BE PUBLIC, JAMES BULGER’S DAD SAYS — AFTER FURTHER OFFENDING

The father of murdered toddler James Bulger says the public should be allowed to see how the Parole Board assesses the case.

The father of murdered toddler James Bulger has called for the next parole hearing involving Jon Venables to be held in public, arguing that the case has become even more significant because of Venables’ later offending.

The request comes as the Parole Board considers applications asking for the hearing to be opened to the public.

Venables was one of two 10-year-old boys convicted of murdering two-year-old James Bulger in Liverpool in 1993. Because of strict legal protections surrounding his identity and whereabouts, his name and other identifying details remain subject to restrictions.

WHY THE HEARING IS BEING CHALLENGED

The Parole Board confirmed in August that it had received an application from Denise and Stuart Fergus, as well as a separate application from representatives of James Bulger’s family, seeking a public hearing.

The applications argue that the exceptional history of the case and Venables’ later offending justify greater transparency.

The Bulger family’s application specifically points to the original child murder, Venables’ subsequent offending as an adult, repeated recalls to custody and wider questions surrounding anonymity, risk management and public protection.

The applicants argue that a public hearing could allow people to better understand how evidence is assessed and how decisions about risk and possible release are reached.

HIS LATER OFFENDING

Venables was first released from custody in 2001.

He was later recalled to prison on two occasions after being found in possession of indecent images of children, according to the Liverpool Echo.

Those later offences have become a central part of the argument for greater scrutiny of any future parole decision.

The applicants say the circumstances make the case different from an ordinary parole review and raise questions about how previous risk-management decisions were made.

THIS IS NOT YET A PUBLIC HEARING

Despite the renewed calls for transparency, no decision has yet been announced confirming that Venables’ parole hearing will be held in public.

The Parole Board’s rules state that parole hearings are normally private, and an applicant must demonstrate why departing from that general rule would be in the interests of justice. The Chair must consider written representations before deciding whether a hearing should be made public.

This is particularly significant because a previous application in Venables’ case was rejected in 2023. The Parole Board said at the time that the hearing should not be made public.

The latest application therefore represents another attempt to bring greater transparency to one of Britain’s most closely watched parole cases.

A CASE THAT CONTINUES TO HAUNT LIVERPOOL

James Bulger was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle in February 1993 and later found dead.

The case shocked Britain because of the ages of those responsible and became one of the country’s most notorious child murder cases.

More than three decades later, the case continues to generate intense public interest.

For James’ family, the latest parole process is not simply about whether a hearing can be watched.

It is also about understanding how authorities assess the risk posed by someone whose offending history did not end with the original case.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Parole Board will have to decide whether the arguments for transparency outweigh the reasons for keeping the hearing private.

The applicants argue that a public hearing could improve confidence in the parole system and allow the public to see how risk, evidence and release arrangements are examined.

But until the Parole Board makes its decision, there is no confirmation that the hearing will actually be held in public.

For James Bulger’s family, however, the message is clear: after decades of secrecy and further offending, they believe the public deserves to see how one of the UK’s most controversial parole cases is handled.