Jack Straw's statement to the House of Commons today on the recall to prison of Jon Venables struck absolutely the right note. By refusing to bow to the intense media pressure to reveal the reasons behind Venables' arrest, Mr Straw has insured that his lawyers will not be able to declare a mis-trial on the grounds of unfair coverage should Venables face charges. Nobody should be denied a fair trial, no matter how awful the offence is that they are accused of. I also wish to echo the sentiments of Baroness Butler-Sloss, who imposed the life-long anonymity order on Venables and Robert Thompson in 2001. I agree that the former should not be identified under any circumstances, given the strength of feeling that still exists about the Bulger case, even 17 years on. He is bound to be the target for vigilantes.
I also can't help wondering about the adequacy of the supervision Venables has received over the last eight years. Denise Fergus, James Bulger's mother, has called for those in charge of Venables to be sacked and I am inclined to agree. At the very least, an enquiry into Venables' supervision should be launched. This is not the first time someone under the supervision of the Probation Service has re-offended in a serious way. I wholeheartedly accept that it is ultimately the individual's responsibility to not break the law. However the question of just how rehabilitated Venables was on his release from custody in 2001 does need to be answered. Given the amount of tax-payer's money and resources invested in giving Venables and Thompson a future with new identities, was it really too much to expect for one of them not to re-offend? Or do the authorities have to share some of the blame?
No comments:
Post a Comment