VIGILANTE JUSTICE

I think it is right that the U.K. Government has not disclosed the reasons for Jon Venables' return to prison.

In 1993 2-year old James Bulger was kidnapped from a shopping centre by two 10-year old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. They later bludgeoned the toddler to death, and left his body on a railway line. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales being only 10, they were tried and convicted for murder in an adult court (a decision later condemned by the European Court of Human Rights).

The Home Secretary had said that they should serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. However, the ECHR also said that their "tariff" should be set by a judge, not a politician; and in 2000, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf ruled that their tariff had expired. In 2001 the boys, now 19, were released on licence, with new identities. The courts also placed a lifetime, blanket injunction on the media, preventing them from revealing anything about the boys' whereabouts or identities.

The automatic sentence for murder in England and Wales is life imprisonment. Convicted offenders do not often spend the rest of their life in prison; but if they are released, they only remain free on licence. If the licence is breached, then the person must go back to prison. Often, but not always, the breach of the licence is the committing of a new crime.

Jon Venables has apparently breached the terms of his licence. According to the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, "extremely serious allegations" have been made against him. However, he declined in Parliament to spell out what these are, since he did not wish to prejudice any possible future trial. A police investigation is ongoing.

This is surely right. Although various people - and not just James Bulger's mother - have said that the public has a "right to know", the Justice Secretary was supported by Baroness Butler-Sloss, the now-retired judge that had issued the injunction in 2001. As she pointed out, Jon Venables has not yet been charged with anything, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in all criminal cases, and there is "at least the possibility that he has committed no offence" (in which case he would be released on licence again). Most importantly, she reminded the general public that the reason behind the blanket injunction, namely the possibility of vigilante violence, or even murder, against the two offenders, still exists; "those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now," she said.

The killing of a child is a particularly horrible crime. But everyone has the right to atone for their sins. Furthermore, the public interest is not the same as what interests the public. Jack Straw did the right thing, and is to be applauded for so doing.

Walter Blotscher