Jon Venables' Latest Parole Bid to Be Heard Behind Closed Doors Despite Denise Fergus's Public Hearing Plea

Jon Venables, one of the two men convicted of murdering toddler James Bulger in 1993, will have his next parole hearing conducted in private, 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 application was turned down. That earlier bid, decided in 2023, concluded that he continued to represent a risk to children and might reoffend if freed. The forthcoming oral hearing will determine whether he remains a danger and whether he should stay in custody.

Ms Fergus had pushed for transparency, saying a public hearing 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. Media organisations also applied for the hearing to be opened, echoing her calls for greater scrutiny.

The Parole Board, however, ruled that allowing the public in would seriously undermine Venables's ability to participate. In its reasoning, the board said a public setting would make it very difficult for him to give evidence, because he could be listened to by individuals seeking information in order to kill him. That security concern proved decisive.

Parole hearings in England and Wales are ordinarily held behind closed doors. They can be opened in the interests of justice, but the board concluded that the risks in this case outweighed the case for transparency. The decision underscores the tension between public accountability and the safety of a highly notorious prisoner.

The case dates back to February 1993, when Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10 at the time, abducted two-year-old James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside. The pair tortured and killed the toddler, a crime that shocked the nation and sparked intense debate about how young offenders should be handled.

Venables and Thompson were convicted and detained, then released on licence in July 2001. Venables 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 recalled in November 2017 for the same type of offence.

His case returned to the Parole Board in September 2020, and again in 2023, when his bid for release failed. Each review has focused on whether his risk can be safely managed in the community. The board's 2023 finding that he still posed a danger to children remains the backdrop to the current proceedings.

Victims of crime have been able to attend private parole hearings under reforms introduced nationally in April, part of a wider effort to strengthen confidence in the justice system. A spokeswoman for Ms Fergus has said her application to observe the hearing was granted, meaning she can follow the proceedings even though the wider public cannot.

The Parole Board's decision highlights the difficult balance it must strike. On one side sits the principle that justice should be seen to be done, particularly in a case that has attracted decades of public attention and, at times, intense media coverage. On the other sits the duty to protect the hearing process and those involved in it.

Legal observers note that public parole hearings remain rare. They are typically reserved for cases where openness serves a clear public interest and where the practical risks can be managed. In Venables's case, the board concluded that no such balance could be achieved without compromising his evidence and his safety.

For Ms Fergus, the ruling is likely to be a disappointment. She has campaigned for years for greater transparency around decisions affecting her son's killers, arguing that secrecy fuels speculation and conspiracy theories. She has previously described the repeated parole reviews as reopening old wounds.

The hearing itself will now take place out of public view, with the Parole Board assessing whether Venables meets the legal test for release. That test requires the board to be satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he remain confined.

If released, Venables would be subject to licence conditions and could be recalled to prison if he breached them. His history of reoffending after release, including two recalls for child image offences, is likely to weigh heavily in the board's assessment of his current risk level.

The case continues to resonate far beyond Merseyside. James Bulger's murder prompted changes in how the justice system treats very young offenders and how the media reports on such crimes. It also raised enduring questions about rehabilitation, public safety and the rights of victims' families.

For now, the parole process moves forward in private, with the outcome expected to shape the next chapter in a story that has remained in the public consciousness for more than three decades. Whether Venables is freed or kept in custody, the decision will be made away from the cameras and the courtroom gallery he and his legal team had sought to avoid.