JAMES BULGER’S FATHER DEMANDS PUBLIC HEARING FOR JON VENABLES — ‘THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW’

Ralph Bulger says Jon Venables’ later offending makes a private parole hearing impossible to accept as his latest bid for freedom moves forward.

More than three decades after the murder of two-year-old James Bulger, his father is once again fighting for greater transparency in the case of one of the men convicted of killing his son.

Ralph Bulger has called for the parole hearing of Jon Venables to be held in public, arguing that the circumstances surrounding Venables’ later offending make it important for the proceedings to be open to public scrutiny.

The request comes as the UK Parole Board considers applications seeking to make Venables’ oral hearing public. The government has confirmed that applications have been received, including one from Ralph Bulger.

A CASE THAT STILL HAUNTS THE UK

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 at the time, were convicted of James’ murder later that year.

The case shocked Britain because of the age of the two offenders and the circumstances surrounding James’ death.

Both were eventually released from custody under lifelong licence and given new identities protected by a court order.

VENABLES WAS LATER RETURNED TO PRISON

Venables’ subsequent history became a major factor in concerns over his release.

He was first released in 2001 but was later recalled to prison on two occasions after being found to possess indecent images of children.

The Liverpool Echo reports that these later offences are central to Ralph Bulger’s argument that any future parole process should receive public scrutiny.

Venables was denied parole in 2020.

In 2023, the Parole Board again refused his release, concluding that it was not satisfied that freeing him at that stage would be safe for the protection of the public.

RALPH BULGER WANTS THE HEARING OPEN

Ralph Bulger has repeatedly challenged what he sees as a lack of transparency surrounding decisions about his son’s killer.

The latest application seeks to change that.

The UK Government has published details of the applications requesting that Venables’ oral hearing be made public. The document confirms that Ralph Bulger is among those who have applied.

However, a public hearing has not yet been guaranteed.

The Parole Board must consider the applications before deciding whether the proceedings should be opened to the public.

DENISE FERGUS HAS ALSO BEEN INVOLVED

James’ mother, Denise Fergus, has continued to campaign for accountability and has been closely involved in previous parole proceedings.

In January 2026, it was reported that Venables would face another parole hearing and that Denise Fergus had been granted permission to attend.

The family’s involvement reflects how the case has continued to affect James’ parents more than 30 years after his death.

WHY THIS HEARING MATTERS

The question is no longer simply whether Venables should be released.

For James’ family, the latest battle is also about how much the public should be allowed to know about the decision-making process.

Venables’ identity and whereabouts remain protected by a lifelong legal order. That protection was imposed because of his age when James was killed and concerns surrounding his safety if his identity became public.

At the same time, his later offending has kept questions about public protection at the center of successive parole reviews.

THE DECISION IS STILL TO COME

For now, there is no confirmation that Venables’ next parole hearing will be held in public.

The applications will have to be considered before the Parole Board makes its decision.

But Ralph Bulger’s latest challenge ensures that the case surrounding James’ death — one of the most notorious criminal cases in modern British history — remains firmly in the public spotlight.

For a family that has spent more than three decades living with the consequences of one devastating crime, the question remains painfully simple:

Should the public be allowed to see how the decision over Jon Venables’ future is made?