JON VENABLES FACES FRESH PAROLE HEARING AS JAMES BULGER’S FAMILY SEEKS PUBLIC SCRUTINY

James Bulger’s family has made a new attempt to have the parole hearing of Jon Venables opened to the public, arguing that the extraordinary case deserves greater transparency.

More than three decades after two 10-year-old boys abducted and murdered two-year-old James Bulger, the case continues to return to the headlines.

One of those boys was Jon Venables, who is now 43 and remains in prison following later convictions involving indecent images of children.

Venables is facing another parole review, more than two years after the Parole Board rejected his previous application for release.

But this time, James Bulger’s family is seeking something that goes beyond the question of whether Venables should be released.

They want the public to be able to see the parole process for themselves.

A NEW APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING

On August 7, 2026, the Parole Board confirmed that it had received an application from Denise and Stuart Fergus, James Bulger’s mother and stepfather, asking for Venables’ parole hearing to be held in public.

The application argues that there is significant public interest in the case and that allowing the hearing to be observed could improve public understanding of how parole decisions are made.

A separate application was submitted by the legal representatives of Ralph Bulger and Jimmy Bulger, James’s father and uncle.

Their application argues that the case is exceptional because it involves the murder of a child by children, Venables’ subsequent offending, repeated recalls to custody and complicated issues surrounding anonymity, risk management and any future release arrangements.

The applications also argue that sensitive evidence could still be heard privately, allowing the hearing to operate partly in public and partly behind closed doors.

The Parole Board has listed the application as a pending application for a public hearing.

There has been no announcement establishing that the hearing will actually be public.

DENISE FERGUS WANTS TO BE HEARD

For Denise Fergus, the possibility of another parole hearing means confronting the trauma surrounding her son’s murder once again.

The Parole Board’s official summary says Denise and Stuart believe a public hearing could allow the process to be subjected to greater scrutiny.

They also argue that Venables should have to confront his offending in a public forum, particularly given his later convictions as an adult.

Their application says they would finally feel listened to if the hearing were opened to the public.

The request does not itself determine the outcome of Venables’ parole application.

The question of whether he can be released remains a separate decision for the Parole Board.

VENABLES DID NOT REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING

The distinction is important because reports surrounding the case have sometimes blurred two separate issues.

Venables is not the person who submitted the current application asking for the hearing to be made public.

The official Parole Board document identifies the applicants as Denise and Stuart Fergus, while another application was submitted by representatives for Ralph and Jimmy Bulger.

Venables has lifelong anonymity protection because of his age at the time of James’s murder.

That means any public hearing would have to be carefully managed so that information capable of identifying him was not disclosed.

The Parole Board considered a similar request in 2023 and rejected it.

At that time, the Board’s chair concluded that the hearing should remain private, citing concerns including the protection of Venables’ anonymity and the fairness of the proceedings.

The new application therefore represents a fresh attempt to change how the forthcoming hearing is conducted.

THE MURDER THAT SHOCKED BRITAIN

James Bulger was two years old when he disappeared from the Strand shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, on February 12, 1993.

Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10, abducted the toddler.

They were subsequently convicted of James’s murder.

Because of their age, both boys were protected by lifelong anonymity orders.

They were released on licence in 2001, after serving around eight years in custody.

For James’s family, however, the case did not end with those convictions or the eventual release of the two offenders.

Venables would later return to prison.

TWO RECALLS TO PRISON

Venables was first recalled to custody in 2010, after indecent images of children were found on his computer.

He was released again in 2013.

In 2017, he was recalled to prison for a second time after another offence involving indecent images of children.

He has remained in custody since then.

His later offending became an important part of subsequent parole decisions.

It also became one of the central reasons James’s family has argued that the public should be allowed to see how the authorities assess the risk surrounding any potential release.

HIS LAST PAROLE BID WAS REJECTED

Venables’ previous parole hearing took place in private in November 2023.

The Parole Board refused to direct his release.

The panel said it was not satisfied that releasing him at that point would be safe for the protection of the public.

It identified concerns including his ability to be open and honest with professionals and the need for him to address outstanding areas of risk.

The panel also noted continuing concerns relating to sexual preoccupation and the potential risk of further offending.

The decision did not mean Venables could never apply for parole again.

It meant that, at that stage, the Parole Board did not consider release appropriate on the evidence before it.

ANOTHER PAROLE REVIEW

In January 2026, ITV reported that Venables was due to have another parole hearing.

The report said the hearing would take place more than two years after his previous failed attempt.

At that stage, the Parole Board had not publicly confirmed an exact date.

The latest public-hearing applications are connected to this new parole process.

The Parole Board’s official documents do not state that Venables has been granted release, nor do they indicate that a decision to release him has been made. The public-hearing question is a separate procedural matter.

WHY THE FAMILY WANTS THE HEARING OPEN

The applications submitted on behalf of James’s family set out several reasons for seeking public scrutiny.

They point to the extraordinary history of the case.

James was murdered when his killers were children.

Venables later committed further offences as an adult.

He has been recalled to prison twice.

His identity remains protected.

And the consequences of any future release would be closely watched by the public and by James’s family.

The application submitted by Ralph and Jimmy Bulger argues that the case raises broader questions about public protection, anonymity and the effectiveness of arrangements used to manage risk after release.

The applicants also argue that sensitive material could be dealt with privately while other portions of the hearing could potentially be observed by the public.

THE FAMILY HAS SEEN THIS BEFORE

This is not the first time James’s family has attempted to have a Venables parole hearing opened.

In 2023, an application was made for the public to observe the hearing.

The Parole Board rejected it.

The official decision explained that parole hearings normally remain private because evidence can involve highly personal information and because witnesses must be able to give their evidence fairly and without inappropriate pressure.

The chair also considered the risk that information disclosed during an open hearing could potentially lead to Venables being identified.

Those concerns remain particularly significant in the Bulger case because Venables’ anonymity has been protected for decades.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The immediate question is whether the Parole Board will grant the new application for a public hearing.

The Board’s official records currently list the Venables public-hearing application among its pending applications.

Even if the application is granted, it would not automatically mean Venables would be released.

The public-hearing application concerns how the parole proceedings are conducted.

The separate parole decision concerns whether Venables can safely be released into the community.

Those are two different questions.

For James Bulger’s family, however, the distinction does not make the upcoming proceedings any easier.