Jon Venables' Latest Parole Bid to Be Heard Behind Closed Doors, Parole Board Rules

Jon Venables, one of the two men convicted of murdering two-year-old James Bulger in 1993, will have his latest parole application considered during a private hearing, the Parole Board has confirmed. The decision rejects a direct appeal from James's mother, Denise Fergus, who had argued that the proceedings should be opened to the public.

Venables, now 44, is seeking release more than two years after his previous parole bid was turned down. The oral hearing will determine whether he should remain in custody or be freed on licence, a decision with profound consequences for both the offender and the family of his victim.

Ms Fergus had campaigned for the hearing to take place in public, arguing that greater transparency would help counter what she described as misinformation circulating about the case. She said such false claims had a retraumatising effect on her and her family, compounding the grief they have endured for more than three decades.

Under standard practice, Parole Board hearings are conducted in private. However, the board retains the discretion to hold a public hearing when it judges that doing so would serve the interests of justice. Several media organisations joined Ms Fergus in applying for the case to be opened up, reflecting widespread public interest in one of the most notorious criminal cases in modern British history.

In explaining its ruling, the Parole Board said holding the hearing in public would make it very difficult for Venables to give evidence. The board noted that he could be listened to by individuals seeking information about him with the intention of killing him. That assessment reflects the extreme hostility Venables has faced since his identity became public and the persistent threats to his safety.

Venables was first released on licence in July 2001, having served a sentence for the abduction and murder of James. His freedom was short-lived in the longer term: in February 2010 he was recalled to prison after indecent images of children were discovered on his computer. He was released again in August 2013, only to be returned to custody in November 2017 for the same category of offence.

Parole judges subsequently reviewed his case in September 2020. In 2023, the Parole Board rejected his bid for release, concluding that he continued to pose a danger to children and that there was a risk he could offend again. That decision set the stage for the current application, which arrives more than two years after his last appeal was dismissed.

James Bulger was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993. He was just two years old. Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10 at the time, snatched the toddler before torturing and killing him. The crime shocked the nation and prompted a wide-ranging debate about child offenders, the age of criminal responsibility, and the treatment of young people within the justice system.

Both boys were convicted and jailed. Venables has since been jailed twice following his initial release, meaning his case has returned to the parole process repeatedly over the years. Each review reignites public attention and raises difficult questions about how the authorities balance the rights and safety of a high-profile offender against the expectations of victims' families.

Victims have been permitted to attend parole hearings held in private under reforms introduced nationally in April. The changes were designed to strengthen confidence in the justice system by giving victims a more visible role in proceedings that directly affect them. A spokeswoman for Ms Fergus has previously said that her application to observe the hearing had been granted.

That means Ms Fergus is expected to be present when the board considers Venables' case, even though the wider public and press will be excluded. Her ability to attend in person represents a significant change from earlier eras, when victims' families had far less access to the parole process and often learned of decisions after the fact.

The Parole Board's decision to keep the hearing private does not prevent it from considering the full range of evidence, including victim statements, psychological assessments, and reports on Venables' behaviour in custody. The central question remains whether he continues to present a risk to the public, and specifically to children, more than three decades after the original offence.

For Ms Fergus, the ruling is likely to be a disappointment. She has consistently argued that secrecy around Venables' case fuels speculation and conspiracy theories, and that public scrutiny would ensure the process is seen to be fair. The board's counter-argument is that openness could jeopardise the hearing itself by deterring Venables from participating fully or by exposing him to vigilante threats.

The case also highlights the unusual legal position Venables occupies. He has been released, recalled, and reviewed multiple times, with each cycle attracting intense media coverage. The Parole Board must assess not only his current risk level but also the pattern of his offending since release, including the offences that led to his recalls to prison.

No date for the hearing has been disclosed in the source material, and it is not yet clear when a decision will be announced. Whatever the outcome, it will be scrutinised closely by James's family, by campaigners concerned with victims' rights, and by those who follow the long and painful aftermath of a murder that took place more than 30 years ago.