Jon Venables will remain in prison following a Parole Board decision that he is not suitable for release. Venables, who murdered two-year-old James Bulger with Robert Thompson in 1993, told the panel he was not seeking release because he accepted the need to undertake further offending work in custody.
The decision was announced on 9 November 2026 following a private hearing. The panel considered evidence from prison and community probation officers, three psychologists and a psychiatrist, as well as a victim personal statement from James’s mother, Denise Fergus.
All but one of the professionals who gave evidence concluded that Venables should remain in prison. The panel’s decision identified concerns about his potential relationship with probation staff, his openness during supervision and the work still needed to address his sexual interests.
Those concerns remained despite an assessment that his remorse was genuine. The decision distinguished between his response to his offences and the separate question of whether he was suitable to return to the community.
Decision on release
In his opening statement to the hearing, Venables accepted that further offending work was needed in custody. His position was therefore not a request for immediate release, but an acknowledgement that work remained to be done while he was in prison.
The panel nevertheless had to reach its own conclusion on his suitability for release. Its decision means he will remain in custody, with the concerns identified during the hearing still requiring attention.
A central issue was how Venables would work with probation staff if released. The panel also considered how open he would be under supervision, a question relevant to the practical arrangements for managing an offender in the community.
The decision cited a “need for further work in custody to address his sexual interests”. That finding placed the focus on work to be undertaken in prison, rather than treating supervision outside custody as sufficient at this stage.
The panel also accepted that his “protracted and extreme remorse” had been assessed as genuine. That assessment did not remove the other concerns set out in the decision or lead the panel to conclude that release was appropriate.
Evidence before the panel
The hearing brought together evidence from professionals working in prison and community probation, alongside psychological and psychiatric evidence. Their conclusions were not unanimous, but all except one supported Venables remaining in prison.
The distinction matters because the decision was not simply a record of Venables’s own stated position. The panel considered professional assessments as well as his opening statement before determining that he was not suitable for release.
Denise Fergus’s victim personal statement was also considered. Such statements allow victims and bereaved relatives to explain the impact of an offence within the parole process. The supplied details of the decision do not include the contents of her statement.
The hearing took place in private. Its outcome sets out the principal concerns underpinning continued detention, including engagement with probation, openness in supervision and further work in custody. Those are distinct from the panel’s acceptance of the assessment of his remorse.
Conviction and recalls
Venables and Thompson were both aged 10 when they murdered James in 1993. They were convicted that year and released on life licence in 2001. Release on life licence does not bring a life sentence to an end: an offender remains subject to licence conditions and can be recalled to prison.
Venables was given a new identity protected by a court injunction. That protection remains an important part of the legal context surrounding his case, separate from the Parole Board’s assessment of whether he should be released.
He was recalled to prison in 2010 and again in 2017 when indecent images of children were found. The present decision concerns his suitability for release from custody, rather than reconsidering the original murder conviction.
The practical effect is continued imprisonment. The panel has identified further work that needs to take place in custody, while leaving unresolved the concerns about how Venables would engage with probation and supervision if released. No timetable for a further parole decision is set out in the details provided.
