Bulger family consider legal action over private Venables parole hearing
The family of James Bulger are reportedly considering legal action after the Parole Board reversed its decision to let them observe Jon Venables’s latest parole hearing. They had asked for a public hearing, saying it could help counter misinformation, but the board has decided it should take place in private.
The board said a public hearing could risk identifying Venables and sensationalising the case, and might make it difficult for him to give evidence safely. At his 2023 hearing, Venables’s release bid was rejected because he was considered a continuing danger to children. He was jailed for James’s 1993 murder, released on licence in 2001, and later recalled to prison twice after child abuse images were found.
- The family says the Parole Board reversed its decision on their attendance.
- Venables’s latest hearing will be held in private.
- His 2023 release bid was rejected over concerns he remained a danger.
New here? Start with this
James Bulger was a two-year-old boy killed in Liverpool in 1993. Two ten-year-old boys were convicted of his murder in a case that became one of the highest-profile criminal cases in modern British history.
Jon Venables was one of the two boys convicted in the killing. He was released on licence in 2001 but has been returned to prison twice since, each time after child abuse images were found.
Parole hearings for serious offenders can be held either publicly or privately, and the outcome affects when someone might leave prison. The Bulger family has sought to observe these hearings, arguing that openness could counter misinformation about the case and its outcomes. However, the Parole Board has cited concerns about protecting Venables's identity and ensuring his safety during proceedings.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The Bulger family's case rests on the importance of transparency in parole decisions, particularly in high-profile cases where public confidence in the justice system is at stake. They argue that a public or observable hearing would allow legitimate scrutiny of the decision-making process and help counter misinformation or conspiracy theories that might otherwise circulate. The family's desire to observe their son's killer's parole hearing reflects a victim's family's need for participation and accountability in the system that directly affects them.
The case against
The Parole Board's position prioritises safety and the integrity of the assessment process over public visibility. A public hearing risks identifying Venables and endangering him, which undermines rehabilitation efforts and raises ethical concerns about prisoner safety. Moreover, the board argues that public proceedings could sensationalise the case and inhibit candid evidence-giving, making it harder to reach fair conclusions about whether he remains a danger to children—a determination that requires honest testimony rather than performance under public scrutiny.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Family of murdered toddler James Bulger ‘threaten legal action’ after being barred from his killer Jon Venables’ parole hearing”.