Parole Board Rules Jon Venables Hearing Will Stay Behind Closed Doors, Rejecting Denise Fergus's Public Plea

The Parole Board has confirmed that Jon Venables, one of the two men convicted of murdering two-year-old James Bulger in 1993, will have his next parole review conducted in private, turning down a request from the victim's mother to open the proceedings to the public.

Venables, now 44, is seeking release more than two years after his previous bid for freedom was turned down. The decision means the oral hearing will take place behind closed doors, with only a limited number of people permitted to attend.

Denise Fergus, James's mother, had argued strongly that the hearing should be held openly. She said a private process allowed false claims and speculation about the case to circulate unchecked, and that this misinformation had caused her fresh trauma each time it resurfaced. Several news organisations backed her call and also applied for the hearing to be opened up to reporters and the wider public.

The Parole Board acknowledged that hearings of this kind are normally held in private but noted that they can be opened when doing so serves the interests of justice. After weighing the arguments, the panel concluded that this case did not meet that threshold.

In explaining its reasoning, the board said a public hearing would make it "very difficult for Jon Venables to give evidence." The panel pointed to the risk that his testimony could be listened to by individuals seeking information about him for the purpose of harming or killing him, a concern that weighed heavily in favour of keeping the proceedings closed.

James Bulger was abducted in February 1993 from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside. He was two years old at the time. Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10, led him away before torturing and killing him. The crime shocked the nation and the pair became the youngest people in modern British history to be convicted of murder.

Venables was released on licence in July 2001. However, he was sent back 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, and his case came before parole judges once more in September 2020.

His most recent parole application was rejected in 2023. At that time, the Parole Board decided he continued to represent a danger to children and that there was a possibility he could offend again. That finding remains central to the current review, which will determine whether he can now be safely managed in the community.

A spokeswoman for Denise Fergus has previously confirmed that her application to observe the hearing had been granted, meaning she will be able to attend the private session even though the public and press will not. Her ability to be present stems from reforms introduced nationally in April, which allow victims to attend parole hearings that are held in private. The changes were designed to give victims a stronger voice and to improve confidence in how the justice system handles sensitive cases.

The question of whether parole hearings should be public has been debated for years. Supporters of open proceedings argue that transparency prevents rumour and misinformation from taking hold, particularly in cases that have attracted intense media coverage. Opponents counter that publicity can jeopardise the safety of those involved and make it harder for panels to obtain frank evidence.

For Venables, the stakes are considerable. If the board accepts his bid, he would be released under licence conditions and subject to recall if he breaches them. If it refuses, he will remain in custody, as he has since his last recall in 2017. The board's assessment is expected to focus on whether the risk he poses can be managed in the community and whether the progress he has made in prison is sufficient to justify release.

The decision to hold the hearing in private also raises broader questions about how the Parole Board balances the rights and safety of prisoners against the public's interest in seeing justice done openly. In this instance, the panel concluded that the danger to Venables outweighed the case for transparency, even taking into account the distress the secrecy causes to James's family.

For Denise Fergus, the ruling represents another disappointment in a long campaign for greater openness. She has consistently argued that decisions about her son's killer should not be made out of public view, and that secrecy fuels the spread of misinformation that adds to her pain. The Parole Board's ruling means that argument has, for now, been rejected.

The hearing itself has not yet been scheduled, and no date has been announced for when the board will reach its final decision. Whatever the outcome, it will be communicated to those involved, and Venables will either remain in prison or be released on licence subject to strict conditions.

The case continues to draw attention because of its age, its brutality, and the fact that both killers were children when they committed the offence. It has shaped debates about juvenile justice, the treatment of offenders who are released under licence, and the rights of victims' families to participate in the processes that decide whether a killer walks free. The outcome of this latest review will add another chapter to that difficult history.