Parole Board Rules Jon Venables' Latest Bid for Freedom Will Be Heard Behind Closed Doors, Rejecting Denise Fergus' Plea for Transparency

The Parole Board has confirmed that Jon Venables, one of the two men convicted of murdering toddler James Bulger in 1993, will have his next parole review conducted in private. The decision, announced on Tuesday, rejects an application from James's mother, Denise Fergus, who had argued that the proceedings should be opened to the public. Several media organisations had likewise pushed for a public hearing. Venables, now 44, is seeking release more than two years after his last unsuccessful attempt to persuade parole chiefs that he no longer represents a danger to society.

Venables and Robert Thompson were both ten years old when they abducted two-year-old James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993. The pair tortured and killed the toddler, a crime that shocked the United Kingdom and prompted a widespread debate about how the justice system should handle child offenders. Both boys were convicted and detained, and Venables has since been released on licence, recalled to prison, and released again on multiple occasions. His case remains one of the most closely scrutinised in modern British criminal history.

Mrs Fergus had demanded that the upcoming hearing be held in public, arguing that secrecy surrounding her son's killer had allowed misinformation to spread. She said this false information had a "retraumatising impact" on her as the victim's mother, and that greater transparency would help counter inaccuracies about Venables' status and the risk he poses. Public confidence in the parole process, she suggested, depends on victims and the wider public being able to see how decisions are reached. Her request was supported by news outlets that argued the case carries an exceptional level of public interest.

The Parole Board, however, concluded that opening the hearing would undermine the fairness of the process. In its reasoning, the board stated that a public hearing would make it "very difficult for Jon Venables to give evidence". The panel noted that he could be "being listened to by people who are seeking to get information so that they can kill him". That assessment reflects the extreme hostility Venables has faced since his identity became known, and the security concerns that have shadowed every stage of his post-conviction life. Parole Board hearings are normally conducted in private, though they can be opened "in the interests of justice" in exceptional circumstances.

The decision means Venables' case will be considered behind closed doors, as was the case during his previous review. In 2023, the Parole Board refused his bid for release, determining that he still posed a danger to children and could go on to offend again. That ruling kept him in custody and set the stage for the current review, which comes more than two years after the last appeal. The board's latest decision concerns only the format of the hearing, not its eventual outcome, and does not indicate whether Venables will be granted release.

Venables' history since his initial detention has been marked by repeated recalls to prison. He was first released on licence in July 2001 after serving time for the murder. In February 2010, he was returned to custody after indecent images of children were discovered on his computer. He was freed again in August 2013, only to be recalled in November 2017 for the same type of offence. Parole judges reviewed his case again in September 2020, and his 2023 bid was rejected. Each recall has reinforced concerns about his ability to live lawfully in the community, and each release has sparked intense public and media interest.

Victims of crime have gained new rights to observe parole hearings in recent years. Under reforms rolled out nationally in April, victims can attend hearings even when they are held in private, a change intended to boost confidence in the justice system. A spokeswoman for Mrs Fergus previously said her application to observe the hearing had been granted. That means James's mother or a representative may be present as the board considers Venables' future, even though the wider public and press will be excluded. The measure was designed to give victims a clearer view of how decisions affecting them are made.

The case has continued to generate headlines more than three decades after James's death. James was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle in February 1993 while his mother briefly looked away. His body was found on a railway line two days later. Venables and Thompson were arrested, tried and convicted, becoming the youngest people in modern British history to be convicted of murder. They were released with new identities and lifelong anonymity orders intended to protect them from retaliation. Those protections have not prevented repeated legal troubles for Venables or recurring public outrage.

The Parole Board's decision is likely to disappoint campaigners who have long argued that the public has a right to know how the justice system handles Venables. Transparency advocates contend that private hearings can fuel suspicion and conspiracy theories, particularly in a case as notorious as this one. Yet the board's counter-argument rests on the practical difficulty of obtaining candid evidence from a witness whose safety cannot be guaranteed. The tension between open justice and personal security is central to this ruling, and it is unlikely to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

For Mrs Fergus, the decision represents another setback in a long campaign for accountability and clarity. She has consistently opposed Venables' release and has sought to ensure that decisions about him are made with the victim's family in mind. Her argument that misinformation flourishes in secret is shared by some victim support organisations, which say that opaque processes can intensify the sense of injustice felt by bereaved relatives. The board's ruling acknowledges those concerns but concludes that they are outweighed by the risk to the hearing's integrity.

The practical effect of the decision is that the oral hearing will proceed without public or press access, though the outcome will eventually be made known. If the board again finds that Venables poses a danger, he will remain in prison. If it concludes that he can be safely managed in the community, it could recommend release on licence with strict conditions. Either way, the decision will be closely watched, and any move toward freedom would almost certainly trigger fresh debate about how the state supervises one of the country's most infamous offenders.

Legal observers note that the Parole Board's task is not to punish but to assess risk. Its members weigh psychological reports, behavioural evidence and security assessments to determine whether a prisoner's detention remains necessary for public protection. In Venables' case, the board has twice concluded that the risk was too high. The current review will require it to judge whether anything has changed, and whether any conditions could manage the danger he may still present. The private format does not alter that legal test, but it does shape how much the public will learn about the reasoning.

The decision also highlights the unusual position of victims in parole proceedings. While reforms have expanded their role, hearings remain primarily a matter between the state and the prisoner. Victims may attend and submit statements, but they do not decide the outcome. Mrs Fergus has used her platform to press for greater openness, and her efforts have already influenced how the case is discussed publicly. Whether her presence at the private hearing will give her the clarity she seeks is uncertain, given the restrictions on what can be disclosed afterward.

Ultimately, the ruling confirms that Jon Venables' latest bid for release will be considered away from public view, despite sustained pressure from James Bulger's family and the media. The board has prioritised the safety of the proceedings and the ability of the prisoner to give evidence over demands for transparency. The hearing will now move forward under the same confidential conditions that have defined previous reviews, with the outcome expected to reignite debate over justice, risk and the rights of victims in one of Britain's most enduring criminal cases.