Jon Venables, one of the killers of toddler James Bulger, has a new identity. Photo / Supplied
Jon Venables, one of the killers of toddler James Bulger, has a new identity. Photo / Supplied
Child murderer Jon Venables could be out by Christmas after he was granted a parole hearing in November.
Venables, now 41, murdered 2-year-old James Bulger after taking him from his mother’s side in a shopping centre in Liverpool in 1993.
He was just 10 at the time when he and school friend Robert Thompson grabbed the 2-year-old before torturing and killing him and tying his body to a railway line 4km away.
Both were jailed for life but released with new identities under a life-long licence in June 2001. Thompson has never reoffended but Venables was caught with images of child sex abuse on his computer and twice recalled to prison, in 2010 and 2017.
This extract from CCTV footage shows Jamie Bulger being led away by Jon Venables. Photo / Supplied
Venables was jailed for 40 months but has now served double time after being rejected for release at the end of his sentence.
Now, in a turn of events, the murderer was granted a two-day hearing to determine whether he will be freed. If successful, he could be “freed by Christmas”.
Bulger’s parents, Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger, have consistently argued for Venables to spend the rest of his life in prison.
A three-person panel will decide whether Venables, who has a new identity, continues to pose a risk to the public after reviewing evidence including testimony from prison and probation officials, and Venables himself.
Typically, parole decisions are made within 14 days.
Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, aged 11 and 10 at the time, were found guilty in 1993 of killing 2-year-old James Bulger. Photo / Getty
The Daily Mail reported that Buglar’s mother had not been informed of the parole hearing date before it appeared in the media. “She’s shellshocked,” a source said.
Previously she told the Parole Board: “If you let him free, you could be ruining the lives of another family like ours. When you look at Venables’s file just remember what he is capable of. He killed my son James, has reoffended time and time again and I have no doubt he would kill another child if he is released.”
Venables previously linked with relocation to NZ
In 2019, British media reported that Venables could be shipped from the UK to New Zealand to start a new life under his new identity.
Venables was granted lifelong anonymity after he was found guilty of murder when he was 10.
At the time, the cost of funding fund legal battles to keep his name secret was reportedly behind the relocation plans, with Canada the most likely destination at the time, but New Zealand and Australia the other possibilities.
When asked about Venables’ possible relocation to New Zealand, then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said “don’t bother applying”.
“I’m advised that Immigration NZ have not received anything official. Because of his existing convictions, he would need an exemption under [the Immigration Act].
“My advice would be: ‘Don’t bother applying.’”
In 2019 it was revealed it had cost the UK taxpayers £65,000 ($125,642) in legal battles to keep his identity a secret.
James Bulger was just 2 when he was murdered. Photo / Bonnier Publishing
Bulger’s father, Ralph Bulger, wanted to identify Venables publicly after he was jailed for possessing child abuse images.
In his legal battle, Ralph argued information about Venables which was already “common knowledge” should be made public, adding that certain details about him were easily accessible online.
However, the UK’s president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, refused to change the terms of the order, saying it was a “wholly exceptional case” which was designed to protect the “uniquely notorious” Venables from “being put to death”.
According to the Guardian, he said: “There is a strong possibility, if not a probability, that if his identity were known he would be pursued, resulting in grave and possibly fatal consequences …My decision is in no way a reflection on the applicants themselves, for whom there is a profoundest sympathy. The reality is that the case for varying the injunction has simply not been made.”
Fergus told the BBC at the time she didn’t support the legal bid, saying she does not want “blood on her hands”.
