James Bulger Murder: Public Inquiry

There are so many unanswered questions that haunt me. Why were critical aspects of my son’s case overlooked? Why did it seem as though the most damning evidence was swept aside? Why? In the hope that I would never seek the truth? Why was the attempted abduction charge not given to the jury to consider? I am here to say that I will never stop fighting for James. He cannot stand up for himself, so it is my duty as his mother to be his voice, his champion.

I implore you, Members of the House, to hear my plea. We must scrutinise the errors that were made, the sentencing that fell short, the conduct at Red Bank House, and the reports that were omitted from the Ormand review—reports that Sir David Ormand knew of but did not disclose. I read these omissions with a heavy heart, knowing that they represent a failure in the pursuit of justice for my son.

No parent should endure what I have. The loss of a child is an unspeakable tragedy, but to know that justice has not been fully served deepens the wound. I ask you to stand with me, to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated, and to uphold the principle that every child’s life is precious and deserving of justice. Thank you for listening to a mother’s enduring love and her unyielding quest for truth.”

Those are Denise’s words. I have got to know Denise personally over the last weeks and months, and I seek to lend my voice to her campaign for getting to the truth and accessing justice. It is one thing for us all to read about Jon Venables being recalled to prison in the newspapers; it is a completely different thing to live every single day in fear, waiting for the next piece of news. That is what is written on Denise’s face when I sit opposite her.

In 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley tabled a parliamentary question about breaches by Thompson and Venables between 2001 and 2018. A copy of that question is provided in the very helpful debate pack that was collated by the House of Commons Library before this debate. The answer to that question revealed that 70 breaches of their life orders had been found in the 17 years between 2001 and 2018.

Denise tells me that the issues that should be considered include how the Omand review’s terms of reference did not include the time when Venables is alleged to have had sexual relations with somebody who was meant to be in charge of him, which my right hon. Friend highlighted, and the previous abduction. She also tells me that when breaches have occurred, she has not been told about them in the manner promised to her by all sorts of standards set out for victims. Actually, when Venables was last recalled, Denise was not informed until a week later, and that was only because it had been in the press. The standard of communication that should have been afforded to her and the rest of James’s family in this case has not been met.

I have dealt with many family members of people who suffered murder. When a person suffers such a heinous crime, each and every time that the state does not live up to an obligation that it promised the victim it would fulfil, the belief that the case was handled well in the first place is eroded a bit. Each and every time something has gone wrong in this case, over the last however many decades, it is a reminder that things were missed, that things were not covered in the court case, that things did not happen. We then wonder why families call for a public inquiry. It is because things got missed. We all know from the many cases that we have handled that things get missed, and when things get missed once, they get missed again in the future. In that future, since James’s death, things have been missed in this case.

The glare of all the media is on this case. I handle cases where nobody knows the name of the little boy or girl who was killed, and I suspect that Denise Fergus is getting a better service than most. The point of having a public inquiry and truth and justice-seeking reviews is not just to get retribution, or to satisfy and tick a box for a grieving family. It is to ensure that our systems are correct. My own child is sat in this room with us today. I want to know that when I am not with him, systems are in place to ensure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. For so many years, James’s mother has felt that she was the last to know, that she was not informed, and that she had to find out, years after the fact, about the sexual violence. It is no wonder then that we end up at a point where a public inquiry is requested. It is the very least that they deserve.

I know that the Ministry of Justice is in some ways alive to that call. Since 2022, allowing victims some access to observe an offender’s hearing has been trialled, with a view to rolling out the scheme more widely in the future. I urge the MOJ to continue moving at pace in overseeing the delivery of the “Parole Board Strategy and Business Plan 2023-2025”, which specifically sets out the Parole Board’s aims in relation to openness and transparency for the next two years and for the next five years. For the next two years, the following steps are outlined:

“Victims able to observe parole hearings with greater ease across the country… Panels are trained and have the necessary guidance to ensure victim observed hearings are effective… Support evidence-based research and analysis of both our current operating model and impact of reforms”.

Then, for the next five years—a period that is crucial for securing lasting change—these steps are set out:

“A more court like operating model”,

and

“Redacted release decisions published in all cases by the secretariat under delegated authority.”

However, that is not what happened last year, when the Parole Board denied a public hearing into Venables’s parole decision. That was hugely disappointing, given that many people believe that the necessary adjustments could have been made to comply with the original High Court injunction regarding Venables’s identity. Of course I respect the independence of the Parole Board, but I have no doubt that wholesale cultural and operational shift at the political level is needed to deliver the changes that are required to give confidence and reassurance to victims and their families.

The historical failings in the system with regard to Venables are clear, and retrospective transparency can and must be applied. The Omand review in 2010 did little to generate confidence in the original decision in 2001 regarding Venables’s release. The mitigating circumstances leading up to his release and any potential influence of others at Red Bank who allegedly engaged in gross misconduct must call into question the original decision. Why did experts consider Jon Venables to have been rehabilitated? I make no personal judgment on that decision, but I find it staggering to assert that, by denying a public inquiry, lessons cannot be learned.

I support a public inquiry. Those in power trot out the usual lines—“It’s too expensive, time-consuming and resource-intensive. There’s nothing to see here.” Even after events like Hillsborough, the penny does not seem to have dropped that victims might—just might—refrain from calling for such inquiries if the system and public sector agencies afforded victims transparency in the first place. If there is “nothing to see here,” let us have all the facts laid bare. The number of signatures on this petition demonstrates the clear strength of feeling on this matter, with more than 3,000 signatories from my Liverpool, Wavertree constituency alone.

Our city of Liverpool remembers James, with fondness for the beautiful little boy he was, and with sadness for the fact that he did not get to live a life that was full and happy or to fulfil his ambitions and potential. That potential was sadly taken away from him and his family in the most unimaginable and horrific of ways. To lose a child in such circumstances should never happen; for his family to still be fighting for justice 31 years later should never have happened and is unbelievably cruel. I hope that Ministers listen today. Once again I pay tribute to the bravery and persistence of Denise and Stuart Fergus and their wider family, as they fight for justice in memory of James.

It is for a public inquiry to consider all the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Liverpool, Wavertree, so I will not prejudge. We have heard a list of issues that such an inquiry should look into, and I wholeheartedly agree. My job is to back up my colleagues and say that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has asked for this. The House of Lords has also asked for a more significant ability to intervene in relation to calling for public inquiries, as has the Institute for Government. Those bodies do not throw such recommendations and suggestions around for the fun of it, but because of our experience in this country, time after time, of a lack of justice for victims.

I therefore wholeheartedly support the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley for this public inquiry; I also absolutely and unequivocally support the right of the family to call for—to demand—this inquiry; and I support my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Liverpool, Wavertree, who are absolutely fantastic in their pursuit of such issues. I thank them too.

Venables was held in a secure children’s unit, Red Bank community home, until his release under licence in 2001. As Denise said in her statement, he had not by then served time in an adult prison. He was then granted a new identity and a lifetime High Court injunction was issued to restrict the publication of information about the new identity. But Venables, as we have heard, was recalled to custody in February 2010 and convicted in July that year of the possession of indecent images of children. His crimes and convictions led to all manner of questions about how he had been managed and supervised. Both the probation service and the Parole Board operate on two basic principles: public safety and public trust. They exist to keep us safe, to protect us from dangerous criminals and to ensure that the public, especially victims, have faith in the justice system.

In response, the Justice Secretary commissioned Sir David Omand to review the Venables case from 2001 to 2010. The review’s terms of reference did not extend to Venables’s time at the Red Bank secure unit. It did not, therefore, examine allegations reported in the press—as we have already heard—that Venables had a relationship with a female member of staff at the unit. The Omand review concluded that the case was managed “appropriately” by the relevant authorities. He said,

“I have established that despite the continuing low underlying risk assessment significant resources were applied by the probation service and Home Office (and then by the Ministry of Justice after the machinery of government changes in 2007) to this case, allowing case management to much more than meet the national standards laid down for the supervision of serious offenders at the MAPPA 3 level.”

He further concluded that the professional assessments were appropriate, given the evidence available at the time. He said that Venables

“did go on to commit a further serious offence, but that does not in itself mean that the assessments made throughout the case of the low risk he posed to the public were wrong headed. I conclude that they were the correct professional assessment on the evidence then available. Events classed as low probability do unfortunately sometimes happen despite everyone’s best efforts—that is the difference between low risk and no risk.”

Venables was again released under licence in August 2013, but was recalled to custody a second time in November 2017 for the same offence. He received a 40-month period of imprisonment and remains in prison, having been refused parole at private hearings held in September 2020 and December 2023.

The e-petition mentions specific concerns around why Venables was judged to have been rehabilitated. While the probation and Parole Board documents are not in the public domain, it is clear that the public would question how the decision was made, especially in 2013 when Venables was again released from prison, only to be recalled. Where possible, the Government should be transparent about the decision-making process, especially the adequacy of the risk assessments carried out; how a judgment was reached about his rehabilitation; and, equally, how the judgment of rehabilitation was challenged and cross-examined.

Although we had the Omand review in 2010, which looked in detail at how Venables was managed and overseen on his first release, we have not had a similar review about his release in 2013 or subsequent recall to prison. That is why a number of questions remain outstanding, including about how the judgment was made in 2013 that it was safe to release him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley highlighted the dozens of other breaches of Venables’s licence conditions. Were they not a sign that this guy should not have been released?

The probation service has a vital duty and role to play in public protection, especially for those being released from prison having committed the most serious offences, such as murder. Although I am not commenting on the specific nature of Venables’s recall in 2017, we on the Opposition side of the House have long been concerned about the gaps in our criminal justice system, which mean that dangerous offenders are being released, are not being properly monitored or assessed by the probation service, and are going on to commit further serious offences. That poses a huge risk to public safety and undermines faith and confidence in our justice system.

We know that our probation service has been through shake-up after shake-up over the last 14 years, including privatisation in 2014; the cutting of senior and experienced staff; and record-high workloads for the staff. In the Minister’s response, I hope that he can outline what action the Government are taking to ensure that our probation service and its staff are equipped, trained and supported to manage high-risk offenders better and how we can ensure that the public, especially victims and their families, can have faith in them.

As hon. Members know, the Parole Board rejected an application for Jon Venables to be released from prison last year. The Parole Board operates independently of the Government and cited a number of factors when it rejected his application to be released. I note that in reporting that decision, the Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), mentioned the Government’s continued commitment to reforming the Parole Board. The Parole Board needs to ensure that it protects the safety of the public and that the public, especially victims and their family members, have faith in its decisions. For that reason, we have long supported and called for a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can query a Parole Board decision, with an independent court acting as a backstop. We believe that that is a fair and practical reform that will build trust in the Parole Board and equally allow for the continued separation between elected politicians and our judiciary.

I conclude by reiterating the complex and sensitive nature of what we are here to discuss, and I look forward to the Minister shining further light on the case following the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and by the family through my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley, for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd). As was said in Denise’s statement, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley put on record, this is about ensuring that no other family has to endure a similar ordeal. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Thompson has remained in the community on life licence without further offence. However, Venables has twice been recalled to custody and subsequently convicted of further offences involving the possession and sharing of illegal images of children: first in 2010, when he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, and then, having been re-released on the direction of the Parole Board in 2013, again in 2018, when he was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. Since Venables became eligible to be considered for release on life licence, following recall, the Parole Board has found on three successive occasions, most recently in December last year, that it remains necessary on the grounds of public protection that he remain confined to custody.

Against that background, I think anyone could well understand the concerns surrounding the first release decision in 2001 and, specifically, understand and appreciate the call for a public inquiry. However, although I fully appreciate the significant concerns that have been expressed and the strength and sincerity of feelings on the issue, I am afraid that I am not today in a position to announce a public inquiry. I appreciate that that will be disappointing to those in the Public Gallery, as well as to Opposition Members. If the right hon. Member for Knowsley considers it helpful, I am open to meeting him and his hon. Friends to have a further conversation about the matters that we are debating.

As hon. Members have highlighted, the then Government commissioned the Omand review, which was published on 23 November 2010. The review did not question the decision that the Parole Board made in recommending Venables’s release in 2001, based on the evidence at that time. The review looked in considerable detail at the management of Venables and made detailed recommendations to address the shortcomings in supervision that had marked some of that period. The subsequent period of supervision, from 2013 to 2017, was consistently tight; in fact, it was the means by which the further offending came to light and a successful prosecution could subsequently be mounted.

I fully understand why the nature of that further offending gives rise to significant concerns as to whether the decisions to release Venables were defective. It may be helpful if I briefly provide a little more explanation about how the Parole Board determines whether prisoners serving life or other indeterminate sentences are released. For any offender sentenced to life imprisonment, a minimum period for that imprisonment is set for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. After the minimum term has been served, by law the prisoner may continue to be detained in custody only so long as their risk requires it—in other words, unless the prisoner’s risk can be effectively mitigated and managed in the community by means of the obligations and restrictions of a post-release licence.

Where it issues a release direction, the Parole Board is concluding that the probation service and partner agencies, taking account of the powers that arise from a post-release licence, have the means to mitigate remaining risks and so prevent the public from being exposed to undue risk. Obviously any such decision involves a judgment, and regrettably the Parole Board can never be completely certain that any prisoner it releases will not reoffend. When the Parole Board determined in 2001 that Thompson and Venables were safe to be released, it took account of risk assessments and reports provided by various professionals. By the time of their release, each had completed their minimum term.

When Venables was recalled to custody in 2010, the then Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, asked Sir David Omand, the former permanent secretary to the Home Office, to undertake a comprehensive review of the management of Venables and set the terms of reference for that review. A version of the review was published in November 2010; I say “version” because, as hon. Members will be aware, it was redacted to comply with the terms of the court anonymity order. The redacted version is available on gov.uk.

In his review Sir David noted that Venables had been detained at Red Bank secure unit, run by St Helens Borough Council. During his time at Red Bank, an allegation was made about an incident involving Venables. I am aware of the press reports speculating about the nature of that incident, but I have seen no contemporaneous official account of it. I appreciate that this will potentially be frustrating for those listening, but I therefore believe that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the basis of the press reports alone.

When Venables was re-released in 2013 at the direction of the Parole Board, the board set the robust licence conditions that it considered necessary to enable the probation service and its MAPPA partners to manage him effectively, mitigate his risk and help to protect the public. There was now a clear difference between the way he had been managed in the period from 2001 to 2010, as covered by the Omand review, and the way he would be managed from 2013 onwards.

It is deeply regrettable that Venables was discovered in 2017 to have been once again downloading and sharing illegal images of children. However, unlike in 2010, his offences were quickly discovered as a direct result of the monitoring and supervision that had been put in place, and there were immediate consequences, with his return to custody. As I have set out, the Parole Board has now concluded three times that Venables remains too high-risk to be released on life licence. For his most recent review, my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary submitted an overarching Secretary of State view recommending that Venables remain in prison on account of substantial concerns over his risk of reoffending and the risk of harm to the public.

I will endeavour to respond to the specific questions from the right hon. Member for Knowsley with as much information as I can, because I believe that that is important. Before I do so, I note that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) have highlighted, in their different ways, the impact that such matters can have on victims’ trust in the system. As a former victims Minister working with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and others, I saw that at first hand. That transparency, that trust and that engagement are central to building the confidence of those who are or have been victims of crimes in the system.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley talked about notifications—or the lack thereof—of breaches. My understanding is that the supervising agencies concluded, based on a number of those breaches, that the threshold for recall to custody was not met; a recall therefore did not take place. The notification comes where a recall takes place, so because the probation officers and others did not deem the threshold for recall to have been met, there would not have been a notification. However, I am happy to take that point away and reflect on it further. The hon. Lady and I were on a Bill Committee in which we looked at the victims code, notifications and victim liaison officers; I am very happy to have another reflection on that.