Jon Venables ‘Too Scared’ to Attend His Own Parole Hearing as James Bulger’s Parents Prepare to Confront Him

Jon Venables — one of the killers of two-year-old James Bulger — is reportedly “too scared” to attend his upcoming parole hearing, amid expectations that the parents of his victim will also be present. The claim has sparked anger and disbelief among campaigners, victims’ advocates and members of the public who argue that Venables, now 41, should face the consequences of his actions directly rather than attempting to avoid emotional accountability.

According to reports in The Sun, Venables has privately indicated to officials that he does not intend to appear in person if James’s mother, Denise Fergus, her husband Stuart, or James’s father, Ralph Bulger, attend the hearing. A source familiar with the situation described the development as a shocking but telling insight into Venables’s character.

“Denise and her husband Stuart, plus James’s dad, Ralph, have every right to be there,” the source said. “But Venables has told officials there is no way he will attend if they are there. This just goes to show what a manipulative coward Venables is.”

The parole board will decide whether Venables may be considered safe for release, though his history of repeated breaches, reoffending, and failure to comply with rehabilitation conditions has left public confidence severely shaken. The murderer’s previous attempts at securing parole were rejected in 2020 and again in December 2023, when officials ruled that he remained a risk to the public and had not been honest in his interactions with probation officers.

Venables and Robert Thompson were both 10 years old when they abducted, tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger in Liverpool in 1993 — one of the most notorious crimes in British history. Their identities were protected upon release in 2001 under lifelong anonymity orders, though Venables has since been jailed twice for possessing child abuse images, prompting widespread debate about whether he should ever have been released at all.

The latest development — Venables allegedly refusing to attend his own hearing if James’s parents are present — has touched a deep nerve among observers who believe he still shows no acceptance of responsibility. For many, it raises difficult questions about the parole system’s ability to manage high-risk offenders who continue to manipulate the process.

The source quoted by The Sun suggested that Venables’s refusal could backfire significantly, potentially harming his chances of release. “The good thing is that a no-show from him will likely harm his chances of being freed,” they said. Under parole rules, an offender’s refusal to participate in hearings or risk assessments is often seen as evidence that they are not ready for release into the community.

For Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger, the right to attend parole hearings has been a long, painful fight. Both have spent decades campaigning for justice and transparency around decisions affecting Venables’s incarceration. Denise, in particular, has been a vocal advocate for stricter sentencing for child murderers and has consistently argued that Venables poses a danger to the public.

While neither parent has commented publicly on Venables’s reported refusal, sources close to the family say they fully intend to attend the hearing — as they have a legal right to do — and will continue to contest any attempt at his release. For them, the parole process is not only about justice but about ensuring that their son’s memory is respected and protected.

The Parole Board has reiterated in previous cases that hearings are conducted impartially and based on risk assessments, psychological evaluations and behaviour while in custody. Attendance by victims’ families does not influence the board in a procedural sense, though it allows them to deliver statements that articulate the impact of the offender’s crimes.

Experts note that Venables’s history of deception with probation officers, combined with his repeated reoffending, will weigh heavily against him. “Parole decisions are not simply about behaviour in prison,” one former senior probation officer explained. “They’re about insight, honesty, risk management, and whether an offender is genuinely safe to be released. Venables has consistently failed on those fronts.”

Public reaction to the reports has been swift. Many have expressed outrage that Venables would even consider avoiding a hearing out of fear of facing James’s parents. Others argue that the justice system must take a firm stance, with one social media user writing: “If he can’t even sit in a room with the people whose lives he destroyed, he’s nowhere near ready to re-enter society.”

As the parole date approaches, the pressure on the board intensifies. Politicians, legal experts and the public continue to debate whether Venables — with his history of lies, breaches and new offences — can ever be safely reintegrated. For now, the only certainty is that tensions around the hearing remain high, and the nation will be watching closely.