Parole Board Rejects Public Hearing for Jon Venables, Citing Risk to His Life

The Parole Board has ruled that child killer Jon Venables will have his next parole bid examined behind closed doors, turning down a request from the mother of his victim that the proceedings be opened to the public. The decision, announced on Tuesday, means the 44-year-old's case will be reviewed at an oral hearing conducted in private, more than two years after his most recent failed attempt to secure release.

Venables was just ten years old when he and Robert Thompson abducted, tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger in February 1993. The pair took the toddler from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in a crime that shocked the nation and has remained a defining moment in British criminal history. Both boys were convicted and later released, but Venables has been returned to prison twice since regaining his freedom.

James's mother, Denise Fergus, had campaigned for the upcoming hearing to be held in public. She argued that secrecy surrounding the case had allowed false claims and rumours to flourish, which she said had a "retraumatising impact" on her and her family. Opening the hearing, she contended, would help counter what she described as misinformation about Venables and the circumstances of his detention.

A number of media organisations also applied for the hearing to be opened, reflecting wider concern about transparency in the parole process for high-profile offenders. Under the Parole Board's rules, hearings are normally held in private, but they can be opened when doing so is judged to be "in the interests of justice." The board weighed those arguments before concluding that the balance fell in favour of confidentiality.

In explaining its decision, the Parole Board said 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 exceptional hostility surrounding Venables, whose identity and whereabouts have been the subject of intense public and media interest for decades.

Venables and Thompson were both jailed over James's death. Venables was released on licence in July 2001, but was recalled to prison in February 2010 after indecent images of children were discovered on his computer. He was freed again in August 2013, only to be called back to custody in November 2017 for the same type of offence. Parole judges then considered his case once more in September 2020.

His most recent parole bid was rejected in 2023. At that time, the Parole Board found that he continued to pose a danger to children and could go on to offend again. That conclusion set the stage for the current review, which will be his first oral hearing in more than two years and will again test whether he can be safely managed in the community.

The case has long raised difficult questions about how the justice system handles offenders who committed crimes as children but remain the focus of extraordinary public attention. Venables has spent much of his adult life in custody or under licence conditions, and each parole review reignites debate over punishment, rehabilitation and the protection of the public.

For Denise Fergus, the decision to keep the hearing private represents another disappointment in a long campaign for greater openness. A spokeswoman for Fergus previously confirmed that her application to observe the hearing had been granted, allowing her a form of access even though the proceedings will not be open to the wider public or press.

That access is itself the product of recent reform. Since April, victims have been able to attend parole hearings held in private under changes rolled out nationally. The measure was introduced as part of efforts to boost confidence in the justice system, giving victims and their families a recognised role in proceedings that would otherwise take place entirely out of sight.

The Parole Board's decision illustrates the tension at the heart of such reforms. Victim participation has been expanded, yet the board retains discretion to exclude the public and the media when it believes openness could undermine the hearing or endanger those involved. In Venables's case, the panel concluded that the risks associated with publicity outweighed the case for transparency.

Legal observers note that the threshold for opening a hearing is deliberately high. The "interests of justice" test requires the board to consider not only the public appetite for information but also the practical consequences for the offender's ability to participate meaningfully. Where evidence cannot be given freely, the quality of the risk assessment may suffer, potentially affecting the safety of the community.

The hearing will now proceed in private, with parole chiefs assessing whether Venables meets the criteria for release. The board will examine his behaviour in custody, his engagement with treatment, and any remaining risk he presents. Its decision will determine whether he remains in prison or is released on licence, subject to conditions designed to manage the danger he poses.

Whatever the outcome, the case will continue to attract scrutiny. For the family of James Bulger, the passage of more than three decades has brought little closure, with each parole review forcing them back into the public eye. For the Parole Board, the ruling is a reminder that its decisions must reconcile the demands of openness with the safety of those whose cases it considers.