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

Jon Venables, one of the two men convicted of murdering two-year-old James Bulger in 1993, will have his latest parole application considered during a private hearing, the Parole Board has confirmed. The decision rejects a direct appeal from the victim's mother, Denise Fergus, who had argued that the proceedings should be opened to the public. Various media organisations had also lodged applications for the hearing to be held openly, reflecting widespread interest in a case that has remained in the public consciousness for more than three decades.

Venables, now 44, is seeking release more than two years after his previous parole bid was turned down. The oral hearing will be conducted by parole chiefs, who will assess whether he remains a risk to the public and whether he can safely be returned to the community under licence conditions. The timing of the hearing follows a lengthy period in which Venables has remained in custody, having been recalled to prison on more than one occasion since his original release.

In explaining its decision, the Parole Board said that holding the proceedings in public would make it "very difficult for Jon Venables to give evidence." The panel highlighted a specific concern: that he could be "being listened to by people who are seeking to get information so that they can kill him." That assessment weighed heavily in favour of maintaining the default position of privacy, which applies to the overwhelming majority of parole cases in England and Wales.

Parole Board hearings are ordinarily conducted behind closed doors. However, there is a discretion to open them up when it is deemed to be "in the interests of justice." It was on that basis that Denise Fergus and several news outlets pressed for transparency, arguing that the public interest in this particular case is exceptional. The board ultimately concluded that the risks associated with a public hearing outweighed the arguments in favour of openness.

James's mother had made a direct and emotional demand for the hearing to take place in public. She said that greater transparency would help counter what she described as "misinformation" circulating about the case, which she said had a "retraumatising impact" on her and her family. For Denise Fergus, who has campaigned for years for victims' families to be given a stronger voice in the justice process, the decision represents another disappointment in a long and painful history with the parole system.

The case itself dates back to February 1993, when Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10 at the time, abducted James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside. The toddler was tortured and murdered, a crime that shocked the nation and prompted a wide-ranging debate about the treatment of young offenders. Venables and Thompson were both jailed following a trial that attracted international attention.

Venables was released on licence in July 2001, but his freedom was short-lived. In February 2010, he was recalled to prison after indecent images of children were discovered on his computer. He was freed again in August 2013, only to be called back in November 2017 for the same offence. Parole judges subsequently considered his case again in September 2020, and a further review took place in 2023.

In December 2023, the Parole Board rejected his bid for release, finding that he still posed a danger to children and that he could go on to offend again. That decision was made public at the time and confirmed that the board did not believe it was safe to return him to the community. The current hearing represents his latest attempt to convince the authorities that his risk has diminished sufficiently to justify release.

A spokeswoman for Denise Fergus previously indicated that her application to observe the hearing had been granted. That development followed reforms rolled out nationally in April, which allow victims to attend parole hearings that are held in private. The change was introduced as part of broader efforts to boost confidence in the justice system and to ensure that victims are not left entirely outside the process when decisions about offenders are made.

Those reforms give victims the right to be present, though not necessarily to participate directly in the questioning or deliberation. The measure reflects a growing recognition that victims' families often feel excluded from decisions that have profound consequences for their lives. For Denise Fergus, being able to attend is a measure of involvement she has long sought, even if the public nature of the hearing she wanted was not granted.

The Parole Board's decision also takes into account the unusual security dimensions of Venables' case. Because of the notoriety of his crimes and the hostility he has attracted, there are genuine concerns about his safety and about the integrity of the evidence-gathering process. The board's reasoning suggests that it believed a public setting could deter him from speaking candidly, potentially undermining the quality of the assessment that determines whether he is fit for release.

Media organisations that had applied for access argued that the public has a legitimate interest in understanding how the parole system handles one of the country's most notorious offenders. The board, however, was not persuaded that this interest justified the risks identified. Its ruling means that the hearing will proceed under the usual conditions of confidentiality, with only a limited number of people present and reporting restrictions likely to apply.

The decision highlights the continuing tension between transparency and the practicalities of managing high-profile cases within the parole system. Victims' advocates argue that secrecy can breed suspicion and allow misinformation to flourish, while authorities maintain that privacy is essential to protect the fairness of proceedings and the safety of those involved. In this instance, the board came down firmly on the side of privacy.

For Denise Fergus, the outcome is the latest chapter in a decades-long effort to ensure her son's case is handled with the seriousness it deserves. Her push for a public hearing formed part of a wider campaign for victims' families to have a more meaningful role in decisions about the release of offenders. That campaign has achieved some success through the April reforms, but the board's ruling shows that there are limits to how far transparency will be extended.

Venables' current bid will now be assessed in a closed setting, with the board expected to weigh psychological evidence, risk assessments, and the details of his custodial history. If release is rejected again, he will remain in prison, with the possibility of future reviews. If it is granted, he would be subject to strict licence conditions designed to monitor his behaviour and manage the risk he is judged to present. The outcome will be communicated in due course, but the process itself will remain shielded from public view.