For more than three decades, Denise Fergus has been forced to relive the most devastating chapter of her life every time one of her son’s killers seeks freedom.
In December 2023, she was finally given a rare moment of relief when the Parole Board refused to release Jon Venables, one of the two boys convicted of murdering her two-year-old son James Bulger in 1993.
Denise described the ruling at the time as the best news she had received in 30 years.
For one brief period, she felt the system had listened.
She could breathe.
She could approach Christmas without the fear that Venables might soon be returned to the community under another protected identity.
But that relief was never permanent.
Venables is now facing another parole review, reopening wounds that James’s family have carried since the toddler was abducted from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, Merseyside, on February 12, 1993.
The crime remains one of the most shocking in modern British history.
Venables and Robert Thompson were both ten when they led James away from the shopping centre before murdering him. They were convicted later that year and became the youngest people convicted of murder in Britain during the 20th century.
After serving eight years, both were released on licence in 2001 with new identities and lifelong anonymity protections.
While Thompson has not been publicly reported to have reoffended, Venables has repeatedly returned to prison.
He was recalled in 2010 after child abuse images were discovered on his computer and later convicted of possessing and distributing the material.
He was released again in 2013, but recalled to custody in 2017 after further illegal images were found. He later admitted offences involving indecent images of children and possession of a child-abuse manual.
Those convictions have remained central to concerns about whether his risk could ever be safely managed outside prison.
At the 2023 review, the Parole Board refused to direct his release, concluding that it was not satisfied public safety could be protected.
For Denise, that decision represented more than a legal outcome.
It was recognition of the fears she had voiced for years.
She had repeatedly argued that Venables’ record after his first release showed that he should never again be trusted in the community.
Yet the structure of the parole system means prisoners serving life sentences can be referred for further reviews, even after earlier applications have failed.
That process has left the Bulger family trapped in a painful cycle.
Every review brings new preparation.
New victim statements.
New headlines.
And the possibility that the man connected to their greatest loss could be released once again.
Denise has described the process as a form of continuing emotional torment. James’s father, Ralph Bulger, has similarly spoken about the trauma caused by repeated hearings.
This time, James’s parents have reportedly been granted permission to observe the proceedings and make their voices heard more directly.
For the family, that participation matters.
They have spent decades feeling that legal decisions were happening around them, while they were left to carry the consequences.
Denise has never stopped campaigning in her son’s name.
Through the James Bulger Memorial Trust, she has supported families affected by crime, bereavement and trauma. Her work has transformed private grief into a source of help for others, even as her own fight for peace has continued.
But no campaign can erase the emotional burden of another parole review.
The issue before the Parole Board is not whether the original crime was sufficiently terrible. That has long been established.
Its legal task is to assess whether Venables currently presents a risk that could be safely managed in the community under strict licence conditions.
For Denise, however, his repeated return to offending after receiving a second chance already provides the answer.
She believes the danger remains too great.
Her position is not built only on anger about the past. It is shaped by what happened after Venables was released: the secrecy, recalls and further convictions involving abusive material.
That history has made every new hearing feel not merely painful, but frightening.
The fresh review also highlights the difficult balance at the heart of the parole system.
It must examine rehabilitation and present-day risk while protecting the public and allowing victims’ families to be heard.
For families such as the Bulgers, those principles can feel painfully unequal.
The offender receives another opportunity to argue for release.
The victim’s relatives receive another date on which they must revisit their loss.
Denise’s response has always been one of determination.
She has continued speaking publicly, not because the process is easy, but because remaining silent would mean surrendering the only influence she feels she has.
More than 30 years after James’s death, she is still fighting to keep his memory at the centre of the conversation.
The 2023 refusal brought comfort, but it did not bring closure.
Closure is difficult when the legal process continues returning to the same question.
Could Venables be released?
Could the safeguards work?
Could the public be protected?
Until a new decision is issued, those questions remain unanswered.
What is certain is that Denise Fergus will once again be watching closely.
She will speak for the little boy who cannot speak for himself.
She will remind decision-makers that behind the legal documents is a family that has endured more than three decades of grief.
And she will continue asking the system to place public safety above another chance for a man who has already been released and recalled more than once.
The previous parole denial was a victory for Denise, but it was never the final chapter.
Now, facing another review, she is once again being asked to find strength in a process that has repeatedly reopened her deepest wound.
For James’s family, justice is not a single ruling.
It is the exhausting, lifelong act of making sure he is never forgotten.
