James Bulger: Jon Venables Parole Hearing to Be Held in Private Despite Public Outcry

One of Britain’s most notorious child killers, Jon Venables, will have his upcoming parole hearing held in private, sparking anger from the family of James Bulger and renewed debate over transparency in the justice system.

The Parole Board confirmed that Venables’ review — which will determine whether he can be safely released back into the community — will take place behind closed doors next month.

The decision has been met with strong opposition from journalists, legal campaigners, and James Bulger’s mother, Denise Fergus, who has long fought for openness and accountability in her son’s case.

A Private Hearing for One of the UK’s Most Infamous Cases

Venables, now 41, was 10 years old when he and Robert Thompson abducted and murdered two-year-old James Bulger in February 1993 — one of the most shocking crimes in modern British history.

The boys lured James away from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, and led him to a railway line where he was brutally killed. The case horrified the nation, sparking widespread debate about childhood criminality, rehabilitation, and justice.

Both Venables and Thompson were convicted of murder later that year, making them the youngest convicted killers in Britain in more than a century.

After serving eight years in custody, the pair were released in 2001 under strict licence conditions and given new identities protected by a lifelong anonymity order issued by the High Court.

However, Venables has since returned to prison twice — most recently in 2017, after child abuse images were found on his computer. His latest bid for release, in 2020, was denied.

The Parole Board’s Decision

The decision to keep the hearing private was confirmed by Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales. In a written statement, she said that despite her “deep sympathy” for the victims, a public hearing would be inappropriate given the sensitive and legally protected nature of Venables’ identity.

“The Panel will need to hear about Jon Venables’ past, present, and future life,” Ms Corby explained.
“The Panel will need to question witnesses in detail, including Jon Venables, if he is willing to give evidence.”

Because Venables’ identity remains protected under a lifelong injunction, Corby said it would be impossible to conduct a full and open hearing without breaching that protection.

“In order to respect the injunction, substantial parts of the evidence would need to be heard in private, including evidence which is likely to be fundamental to the decision of the Panel,” she added.
“In circumstances where evidence critical to the Panel’s decision cannot be heard publicly, it is difficult to see how a public hearing would aid transparency or public understanding.”

Public Interest vs. Privacy

The Parole Board’s ruling follows formal requests from media outlets — including the BBC — and from Denise Fergus, who argued that the hearing should be open to the public in the interest of transparency.

Fergus has long expressed concerns about the handling of Venables’ case and has repeatedly stated that the public “deserves to know” how decisions regarding his release are made.

“The people of this country should have the right to see what’s happening,” she said in an earlier interview. “This isn’t just about my son — it’s about trust in the system.”

The BBC also submitted a request for a public hearing, stating that there was “legitimate and overwhelming public interest” in understanding how authorities planned to manage Venables if he were to be released again.

However, legal experts say that the High Court injunction protecting Venables’ identity makes public scrutiny virtually impossible.

“It’s a unique case,” said legal analyst Professor Michael Barton. “The right to privacy here doesn’t stem from privilege — it’s a matter of physical safety. The courts have made clear that revealing Venables’ identity could put his life in danger.”

A Case That Still Haunts Britain

The murder of James Bulger remains one of the most haunting and emotionally charged cases in British criminal history.

For many, the image of the toddler being led away by two schoolboys is seared into collective memory — a symbol of both unimaginable cruelty and the complexities of juvenile justice.

In 2010 and again in 2017, Venables’ reoffending reignited national outrage and deepened questions about whether he could ever be safely reintegrated into society.

Now, with the Parole Board preparing to review his case once more, those emotions are resurfacing.

“Every time his name comes up, it opens the wound all over again,” Denise Fergus said previously. “I’ll never stop fighting for James — never.”

What Happens Next

The Parole Board will convene next month to assess whether Venables can be safely released. The panel will review psychological evaluations, prison behavior reports, and testimony from professionals involved in his case.

If released, Venables would once again live under a strict licence, monitored by probation officers and subject to recall if he violates any conditions.

However, given his previous reoffending, experts believe the likelihood of release remains slim.

“Venables has repeatedly breached the public’s trust,” said criminologist Dr. Helen Morris. “There will be immense caution around any decision to free him.”

For the Bulger family, the outcome may offer little comfort either way. Whether Venables remains behind bars or not, the grief that began in 1993 still defines their fight for justice.

As one family friend said simply: “For Denise, the pain never goes away — and the system never seems to stop reopening it.”