Jon Venables protection justified – until guilty verdict

THE UK Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, has looked and sounded very uncomfortable when dealing with calls from the mother of murder victim James Bulger for more details about why her son's killer, Jon Venables, is back in prison.

In a Commons statement yesterday Mr Straw maintained that releasing further information about the new allegations facing Venables was not in the interests of justice because it could threaten the fairness of any future trial.

In this the Justice Secretary is right. It is a principle of the British legal system that anyone accused of a crime should have a fair trial. Giving more details on Venables including, possibly, his new identity would jeopardise a fair trial.

However, were the allegations against Venables proven, the position would change. A man, now 27, who committed a heinous crime when he was just ten years old – and was given a second chance under a legal order guaranteeing his anonymity – will have demonstrated that he has not reformed.

There would, in that case, be a strong argument for him losing the legal anonymity that was granted him.

One might draw a parallel with double child killer Mary Bell who served her time and as far as we know has lived a quiet, law-abiding life bringing up her own daughter under a legally imposed cloak of anonymity.

Once any legal action involving Venables is concluded and if he is convicted of a further serious crime, Mr Straw might wish to reconsider his position.