Bulger killer was recalled to prison on 'suspicion of child porn offences'

Jon Venables has his mugshot taken in 1993. There are fears his release was a mistake Picture: Getty Images

The claims about the 27-year-old convicted murderer came after Justice Secretary Jack Straw refused to disclose the reasons for last week's recall, saying only they related to "extremely serious allegations".

Senior politicians yesterday lined up to support the government's stance.

The decision was backed by David Blunkett, who as then home secretary informed MPs of the Parole Board's decision that Venables should be released in 2001.

"The separation between judges and politicians is critical," he said. "The idea that we should abandon it in this case is understandable coming from James' immediate family.

"Even with a general election pending, the government cannot and must not bend on this – not least because if Venables has committed a further crime, then that victim and their family deserve their day in court."

Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman declined to comment on the reason why Venables was returned to custody.

She said: "If there is a question of an offence having been committed then it needs to be properly investigated and anybody who has committed an offence needs to be brought to trial.

"We don't want anything to happen whereby they can't be brought to a trial because it is said that they can't get a fair trial because all the media reporting has been prejudiced."

James' mother, Denise Fergus, said Venables should lose his anonymity if he is charged with a new offence.

Her spokesman, Chris Johnson, said: "If after that, depending on the outcome of the court case, the powers that be decide that he should have some new identity yet again, then we'll deal with that when we come to it.

"But she can't understand why he doesn't appear in a dock under his own name, if that's going to be where he ends up."

Mr Johnson added: "She's appalled. She doesn't think that he should be at liberty anyway.

"In her mind, if there has been an offence committed, it means that that could have been avoided."

Venables and his accomplice Robert Thompson were just ten when they battered two-year-old James to death in Liverpool 17 years ago.

They were both released on lifelong licence in 2001 with new identities, requiring them to obey strict conditions such as not contacting each other or returning to the city where James was killed.

Reports last week said Venables has visited nightclubs and a pop concert in Liverpool and even watched Premier League side Everton at Goodison Park.

Venables reportedly faces a return to court over the "extremely serious" allegations, causing a potential security nightmare for the authorities trying to preserve his lifelong anonymity order.

Justifying his decision not to disclose details of Venables' recall, Mr Straw said: "I said that I was unable to give further details for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so. That view was shared by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individuals."