The first public parole hearing, leading to the release of the convicted murderer Russell Causley, was only held in December last year. The introduction of limited transparency to the system followed controversy over a secret hearing that proposed to free the serial rapist John Worboys.
The move to allow open hearings on application was, the Ministry of Justice declared, “part of the government’s root and branch reforms to restore public confidence in the parole system and put victims at the heart of the process”. Yet ten months on from the Causley hearing those reforms are already being challenged. A hearing to decide on whether Jon Venables can be safely released from prison will be held behind closed doors next month.
Venables is one of Britain’s most controversial prisoners. He was aged ten when he and Robert Thompson murdered the toddler James Bulger on Merseyside in 1993. The sadistic nature of the violence and the ages of the perpetrators made this a crime that shocked a whole society.
Eight years later, Venables and Thompson were released under strict licence. After being the target of death threats, they were given new identities and lifelong anonymity orders. Venables has been recalled to prison twice after being found in possession of child abuse images in 2010 and 2017. The parole board rejected his most recent application for release in 2020. The board will now consider his release again but has decided it will do so in private because it fears that opening up the process, which may include questioning of Venables, could inhibit witnesses or lead to inadvertent disclosure of his identity or future living arrangements.
In an age of uncontrolled social media, there may be a case for excluding the general public from the hearing. However, there is a strong argument for permitting representatives of the established media to be present.
Advertisement
The press has a longstanding role as “the eyes and ears of the public” in the criminal justice system. There is a public interest in allowing reporters to convey the proceedings and decisions made in our courtrooms and the reasons behind those judgments. The basic principle of open justice — that justice has to be seen to be done — is a cornerstone of our legal system.
In sensitive cases such as this reporters can be trusted to operate within limits set by judges. Every day across the country members of the press adhere to reporting restrictions and work within the confines of court orders, yet still report the essential elements of important cases.
If the parole board wants to command confidence in its decisions on Venables it should trust reporters to be present to scrutinise its work.
