Civitas
+44 (0)20 7799 6677

Kicking the case back and forth

Anastasia De Waal, 5 March 2010

We were informed this week that Jon Venables, one of James Bulger’s murderers, has violated his parole and is back behind bars. We don’t know what he did, we don’t know how long it’s been since his return to prison, and we don’t know how long he will remain there.

We don’t even know who he now is, as he was given a new identity on his original release from his Youth Offenders’ Institution, along with fellow killer Robert Thompson.

It has now been said that it is ‘very likely’ the public will be informed when he is released, ‘due to the nature of the case’.  Home Secretary Alan Johnson says the public have the ‘right to know’: a position in tension with the Ministry of Justice’s apologetics that they are legally bound not to reveal more.  Generally, the outcome of hearings such as this one would not be made public, however a spokesman for the Parole Board has stated that an exception will likely be made and the result announced – on the basis of the case’s high profile.

Although the truth remains speculative this hasn’t prevented newspapers releasing their versions of what is alleged to have taken place.  Cited in one paper is Detective Alan Kirby, who led the original investigation, asserting his opinion on Venables’ case: ‘They wouldn’t, using football parlance, have given him a red card for one infringement’.

The football analogy can be augmented.  The Bulger case, while fortunately atypical in its brutality, is unfortunately seminal in that from its inception it has represented a political football, underpinned by three ‘tackles’.   In 1993, Tony Blair, rising star of the Labour party, became a household name thanks to a speech in the wake of the murder, warning that the UK was sliding into ‘moral chaos’ and promising New Labour would deliver policies that were ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’.  Michael Howard, soon to become Home Secretary, responded with his famous ‘Prison Works’ speech to the Tory Conference.  And now, as the general election approaches, Alan Johnson’s line smacks distinctly of popularism: after spending £5.5 million over 17 years on protecting the anonymity of Venables and Thompson, the Home Secretary is now prepared to compromise it.

Are these two child killers entitled to anonymity or not? Surely given the amount of information that will be made public on Jon Venables, enough people will be able to put two and two together and put his safety in the wider community at stake.  Without making an argument for or against how the Bulger case has been handled in this particular piece, it might at least be argued that Labour could have stuck to a univocal line. Are they now doing an expensive U-turn – or is the government actually going to fork out even more cash in providing Venables with a second new identity so that it can have it both ways?

Lara Natale

Newsletter

Keep up-to-date with all of our latest publications

Sign Up Here