James Bulger’s father has condemned the decision to hold the parole hearing of his son’s killer behind closed doors, calling the move “an insult” to the family.

Jon Venables, who was convicted alongside Robert Thompson after the two 10-year-olds murdered two-year-old James in 1993, is due to have his latest bid for freedom considered at an oral parole hearing.

The Parole Board has decided the hearing will take place in private, despite objections from James’ family and several media organisations who had called for greater public scrutiny.

View 4 Images

James Bulger was tortured and murdered by Jon Venables in 1993(Image: PA)

Ralph Bulger, now 59, told The Sun on Sunday that he was furious with the decision.

“Our feelings and emotions don’t matter to faceless parole chiefs although we were given assurances we could attend. It’s an insult and like trampling over James’s grave.”

He accused the authorities of repeatedly prioritising Venables while leaving James’ family feeling ignored.

“Once again it’s all about looking after child killer and paedophile Venables while James’ family are tossed aside like the rubbish,” he said.

Family wanted the hearing opened to the public

View 4 Images

Jon Venables will have a parole hearing in private(Image: PA)

James’ mother, Denise Fergus, had previously called for the parole hearing to be held publicly.

She argued that greater transparency could help counter what she described as “misinformation” surrounding the case and prevent further “retraumatising” the family.

Fergus also said a public hearing could give people a better understanding of how the parole system operates and would have helped her feel that her concerns had finally been heard.

Parole hearings are normally conducted in private, although the Parole Board has the power to make one public when it believes doing so is “in the interests of justice”.

In Venables’ case, however, the board concluded that opening the proceedings could make it “very difficult” for him to give evidence.

The board said there was a concern that Venables could be listened to by people attempting to obtain information that could ultimately be used to kill him.

Ralph Bulger says Venables remains a danger

View 4 Images

Ralph Bulger said it was an “insult” for the parole hearing to be in private(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/REX/Shutterstock)

Ralph Bulger remains firmly opposed to Venables being released.

“He’s a coward, and is still a danger to children,” he told The Sun on Sunday.

He also called on Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to intervene if the Parole Board decides to release Venables.

“If the Parole Board buckle, I urge Andy Burnham to step in and block his release,” he said.

Venables’ previous parole bid was rejected in 2023. At that hearing, the Parole Board concluded that he continued to pose a risk to children and could commit another offence if released.

His latest hearing comes more than two years after that decision.

Venables has been recalled to prison twice

View 4 Images

Denise Fergus had previously demanded that the hearing be held in public (Image: CHRIS NEILL)

Venables and Thompson were both 10 when they abducted James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993.

The pair were later convicted of his murder.

Venables was first released on licence in July 2001. He was recalled to prison in February 2010 after indecent images of children were discovered on his computer.

He was released again in August 2013, but was recalled for a second time in November 2017 after being convicted of a similar offence.

His case was subsequently considered by parole judges in September 2020 and again in 2023, when his release was refused.

Victims can attend private parole hearings

A spokeswoman for Denise Fergus previously said her application to observe the proceedings had been approved.

Under reforms introduced nationally in April, victims have been able to attend parole hearings that remain private as part of wider efforts to increase confidence in the justice system.

The changes mean that although members of the public may not be permitted to attend, victims and their representatives can have a greater role in proceedings concerning offenders who harmed them or their families.

For James Bulger’s parents, however, the latest decision has reignited the long-running debate over how much transparency should be given when a parole application involves one of the country’s most notorious child murder cases.

Ralph Bulger’s anger reflects a continuing belief within the family that James’ voice and their own concerns should not be overshadowed by the rights and welfare of the m