Jon Venables, who tortured and murdered James Bulger in 1993, will have his latest parole bid heard in private, despite a plea from his victim's mother for it to be public, the Parole Board has decided.
Venables was just 10 when he and Robert Thompson, also 10, tortured and killed two-year-old James after luring him away from his mum Denise Fergus as she was shopping in Bootle Strand on February 12, 1993. Venables was first released on licence in 2001, but was recalled to prison twice after being found guilty of possessing indecent images of children in 2010 and 2017.
Parole Board rejects public hearing application
The Parole Board rejected Venables' bid in 2023, concluding he still posed a danger to children and could go on to reoffend. But it was announced earlier this year that Venables, who now has a new identity, would go before a new parole hearing.
The Parole Board announced in August that Mrs Fergus and her partner, Stuart Fergus, had made an application arguing that, due to the public interest in the case, an open hearing could "increase understanding". In a summary of the application, published online, they added that the "prisoner should have to face up to his offending...especially given that he has committed further serious offences as an adult".
Injunction limits transparency
But today (Monday, September 28), John Saunders, speaking on behalf of the Chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales, said the injunction preventing the reporting of Venables' identity would limit the transparency of an open hearing. Despite acknowledging the "powerful arguments" made by Mrs and Mr Fergus and some media organisations for the hearing to be made public, Mr Saunders argued its effectiveness would be limited due to the restrictions that would need to remain in place. As a result, the hearing could "mislead" the public about how the Parole Board makes its decisions rather than inform them.
Mr Saunders said much of the evidence would still need to be held in private, with the injunction in place to protect Venables from "serious physical attack or death". He said making the hearing open could make it "very difficult" for Venables to give evidence while worrying he is "being listened to by people who are seeking to get information so that they can kill him".
Mr Saunders said: "The injunction which remains in existence was made in order to protect Jon Venables from serious physical attack or death. The Court continued the injunction in its decision in 2019 because it considered that there was a real risk to Jon Venables life if it was not continued."
"The applicants and the press put forward powerful arguments for a public hearing but I have to balance out what a public hearing could achieve in the circumstances of this case; the terms of the injunction and the effect that they would have on the effectiveness of the hearing."
Victims to receive audio recording after hearing
An application for a victim observation has been made and approved. Given the terms of the injunction, the victims are unable to view the hearing live. "Arrangements have been made for victims to listen to an audio recording after the hearing has been concluded and after it has been checked for compliance with the terms of the injunction," Mr Saunders said.
"The Parole Board is bound by the terms of the injunction and the need to comply with its terms would have a substantial effect on the way any public hearing could be conducted. Complying with the terms of the injunction will considerably restrict the amount of transparency which would be achieved by a public hearing. Jon Venables could not be seen on camera and his voice would need to be disguised."
"A great deal of the evidence would need to be held in private as it would be considering matters which could contravene the injunction if disclosed as well as medical issues and other confidential information. This would not be restricted to direct information going to Jon Venables' identity or whereabouts but also the so called 'jigsaw' effect would need to be considered."
"There would need to be a delayed broadcast to try and ensure that nothing was said inadvertently which would breach the injunction. Holding the hearing in public would also restrict the ability of the participants in the parole hearing to give their best evidence in my judgment. It would be very difficult for Jon Venables to give evidence in the knowledge that he could be being listened to by people who are seeking to get information so that they can kill him. HMPPS [HM Prison and Probation Service] staff may be affected in the evidence they give by the same knowledge. That would not necessarily even be something of which they were aware."
"I note that a high bar has been set for a public hearing to be in the interests of justice and I have decided that this high bar is not met in this case for the reasons that I have given. I therefore have not granted the application for the hearing to be held in public."
