“OVERWHELMING RELIEF”: JAMES BULGER’S MOTHER SPEAKS OUT AFTER JON VENABLES IS REFUSED PAROLE AGAIN

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — More than 33 years after the murder of her two-year-old son, Denise Fergus has spoken of the overwhelming relief she feels after a parole panel ruled that Jon Venables must remain behind bars.

For James Bulger’s mother, the decision brings a moment of reassurance after weeks of uncertainty and anxiety over the possibility that one of the men responsible for her son’s dєatᩚh could be released.

Venables, now 44, was considered for release during his latest parole review. But the panel concluded that it was not satisfied he was suitable to return to the community.

In an unusual development, Venables himself told the panel that he was not seeking release. At the beginning of the hearing, he acknowledged that he needed to undertake further offending-related work while in custody.

The decision was published on November 9, 2026, bringing an end to the latest stage of a process that has repeatedly forced James’s family to confront the possibility of Venables being freed.

Speaking on Denise’s behalf, her spokeswoman, Kym Morris, described her immediate reaction as one of “overwhelming relief.”

“This is the decision she has desperately waited for,” Morris said, explaining that the prospect of Venables’ release had caused Denise enormous anxiety.

But while the ruling has brought temporary peace, the family says the wider parole process continues to place an enormous emotional burden on those who have already suffered an unimaginable loss.

WHY THE PAROLE BOARD DECIDED VENABLES MUST REMAIN IN PRISON

The parole panel considered evidence from prison and community probation officers, three psychologists and a psychiatrist.

According to the published decision summary, Venables had completed a considerable amount of work in prison to address his offending behaviour.

However, the panel remained concerned about continuing issues involving his 𝘴єxual preoccupation.

It identified potential future risks, including the possibility that he could return to viewing indecent images of children or progress towards offences involving direct contact with children.

The panel also raised concerns about how effectively he would cooperate with probation officers if released and whether he would be sufficiently open and honest under supervision.

Although professionals assessed his expressions of remorse as genuine and sincere, the panel concluded that the outstanding concerns had not been adequately resolved.

Its final position was clear: Venables was not considered suitable for release at this stage.

The decision means he will continue serving his sentence in prison while further work is undertaken to address the risks identified by the panel.

VENABLES TOLD THE PANEL HE WAS NOT SEEKING FREEDOM

One of the most notable details from the latest review was Venables’ own position.

According to the decision summary, he submitted an opening statement at the beginning of the hearing acknowledging that he needed to undertake further offending-related work in custody.

He therefore indicated that he was not seeking release.

His position did not remove the need for the panel to examine the available evidence and assess whether he could safely be released.

The panel still considered reports from professionals involved in his rehabilitation, his behaviour in custody and the potential risks he could pose outside prison.

Ultimately, it was not satisfied that the conditions for release had been met.

The decision is particularly significant because Venables has previously been released on licence and subsequently recalled to prison following further offending.

WHY THE HEARING WAS HELD BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

The latest parole hearing was held in private, despite Denise Fergus’s wish for greater public transparency.

The family had sought permission for the public to observe the proceedings, arguing that a public hearing would help them feel that their concerns were being heard.

However, the Parole Board refused the application.

In a decision published on September 28, 2026, the Board explained that making the hearing public could create serious difficulties for Venables when giving evidence.

There were concerns that people seeking information about his identity or whereabouts could potentially use information disclosed during the proceedings to harm him.

The Board therefore decided that the hearing should remain private.

For Denise and her family, the decision was another source of frustration in a process they believe should give greater consideration to the experiences of victims’ relatives.

They have repeatedly argued that families should not be left feeling excluded from decisions that have such a profound impact on their lives.

THE CRIME THAT SHATTERED A FAMILY IN 1993

The case dates back to February 12, 1993.

Two-year-old James Bulger was at the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, Merseyside, with his mother, Denise Fergus, when he disappeared.

Venables and Robert Thompson, both just 10 years old at the time, abducted the toddler from the shopping centre.

James was taken away from his family and subjected to a horrific αttαᑕk. His body was later discovered on a railway line.

The murder shocked Britain and attracted international attention because of the ages of the two children responsible.

Venables and Thompson were convicted of James’s murder and sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence used for children convicted of murder in England and Wales at that time.

They were released on licence in 2001, having been granted new identities and lifelong anonymity protections because of their ages and the risk of vigilante attacks.

For James’s family, however, the end of the original criminal proceedings did not mean the end of the ordeal.

The possibility of Venables returning to prison, being considered for release and facing further parole reviews has remained a recurring source of distress.

TWO RELEASES — AND TWO RETURNS TO PRISON

Venables was first released on licence in July 2001.

In February 2010, he was recalled to prison after indecent images of children were discovered on his computer.

He was released again in August 2013.

But in November 2017, he was recalled for a second time following further offending involving indecent images of children.

In February 2018, he pleaded guilty to offences involving the making of indecent images of children and possession of a paedophile manual. He received a 40-month prison sentence.

He has remained in custody since that recall.

A previous parole review in 2023 also concluded that he should not be released because concerns remained about the risk he could pose to children.

The latest decision represents another unsuccessful stage in his attempts to secure release from his current period of imprisonment.

DENISE FERGUS: RELIEF FOR HER FAMILY AND CONCERN FOR OTHER CHILDREN

For Denise, the latest ruling is about more than the outcome of one parole hearing.

Her representatives have repeatedly expressed concern about the possibility of Venables being released and the potential risks that could follow.

Morris said the family’s concerns extend beyond their own experience to the safety of other children.

The possibility of another release had caused Denise enormous anxiety, particularly given Venables’ history of repeated offending.

The latest decision has therefore provided a sense of reassurance that she had been desperately hoping for.

But the family has also made clear that the emotional consequences of the parole process do not disappear simply because a release application has been refused.

Every review brings back the memories of February 1993 and forces James’s loved ones to consider the possibility of another change to Venables’ status.

For a mother who has spent more than three decades living with the loss of her little boy, that uncertainty remains deeply painful.

THE FAMILY WANTS CHANGES TO THE PAROLE PROCESS

Although Denise has welcomed the decision, her representatives are now calling for changes to the way parole reviews are handled for prisoners serving life sentences.

Their concern is that bereaved families can be repeatedly exposed to the same traumatic experience without sufficient recognition of the cumulative emotional impact.

The family is seeking longer intervals between parole reviews where legally possible, stronger support for victims’ relatives and greater protection from the distress caused by repeated proceedings.

They also hope to meet Justice Secretary Alex Norris to discuss possible changes.

Kym Morris explained that the relief felt after the latest decision does not remove the distress of knowing another review will eventually follow.

The family believes that relatives of victims should not have to repeatedly relive the worst experience of their lives without meaningful consideration of the harm caused by the process.

The next review is expected in approximately two years, although the precise timing will depend on the parole process and the relevant legal arrangements.

That means Denise may eventually have to prepare herself for another round of proceedings.

For now, however, the latest decision gives her some breathing room.

A MOTHER’S CAMPAIGN THAT HAS CONTINUED FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES

Since James’s murder, Denise Fergus has continued to speak publicly about her son and the devastating impact his dєatᩚh had on her family.

She has campaigned for victims’ rights, spoken about the long-term consequences of violent crime and repeatedly raised concerns about the treatment of families during parole proceedings.

Her latest response reflects a difficult reality: even when a decision goes the way a family has hoped, the process itself can reopen painful memories.

The parole system must consider rehabilitation, evidence of risk and public protection. But Denise’s representatives argue that the emotional wellbeing of victims’ families should also receive meaningful consideration.

Their request is not simply for a favourable outcome in one case. They want a process that recognises the lasting consequences of serious crime and provides better support to those left behind.

“TODAY, DENISE CAN BREATHE A LITTLE EASIER”

The Parole Board’s decision means Jon Venables will remain in prison for now.

For Denise Fergus, it is the outcome she had been waiting for — a moment of relief after years of uncertainty.

But it is not the end of the family’s struggle.

Another parole review is expected in the future, and the family wants changes before it has to face the same emotional ordeal again.

More than three decades have passed since two-year-old James Bulger was taken from his mother.

His life was tragically cut short, but his story has never disappeared from public memory.

For Denise, the latest decision offers a little more peace. Her representatives say the family deserves more than temporary relief before the next review begins.

For now, Venables remains behind bars — and James’s mother can finally breathe a little easier.