Given the circumstances of his notoriety and the callous murder of Jamie Bulger eighteen years ago, Jon Venables is doomed to be the object of media interest, possibly for the rest of his life.
When he was released from custody in 2001, as with anybody convicted of murder, he was on licence for life. This means that he can be returned to custody if he breaches the conditions of his licence, or if he commits a further offence. Details are awaited.
One issue of this media frenzy concerns his new identity, and the provisions of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In brief, the State is enjoined to protect the life of any one of its citizens, an Article honoured more in the breach than the observance by many States which are signatories to the Convention. But the State cannot distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. Where there is a real threat to any citizen’s life, the State is required to act.
And so it was with Venables, and Thompson, his partner in crime. When Venables was due for release, the High Court was persuaded that Article 2 applied, apparently on the back of threats from Jamie Bulger’s father. In the circumstances, it was curious that he was never arrested or prosecuted, which in turn calls into question the reasoning behind the granting of the injunction. erhaps it matters not, but in the event, Venables was granted anonymity, and with it, a new identity.
Whilst to many, the very idea of granting anonymity to the perpetrators of heinous crime is repellent, but there is always a risk that vigilantes will take the law into their own hands. Sadly, most of these “vigilantes” come from the bottom of the aquarium, and there is no knowing what they might do; the more so if the object of their attentions is an innocent bystander, as has happened in the past.
A new identity is no easy task to achieve. It needs ingenuity, total credibility, and above all, careful and painstaking schooling in the new life that lies ahead. Given that Venables was poorly educated and abused as a child – no easy task to perform. Creating and monitoring a new identity also costs thousands of pounds, so blowing it has serious consequences.
Jack Straw finds himself on the horns of a dilemma, and for once, a crisis not entirely of his own making. By returning Venables to prison, his new identity has almost certainly been blown. Those of us who have worked within the prison culture know full well that there are no secrets within the prison community, and news of this magnitude will spread like wildfire. And as we have seen many times in other high profile cases, the intentions of the legislature and the courts can be defeated by the internet.
So it boils down to a stark choice between protecting Venables’ identity, too late for that, or after “due process”, starting all over again when he is released once more from custody. The learning curve for Venables will have to start from scratch, with more schooling, and more money, and no certainty that this exercise will have to be repeated, again and again.
The simple yet unattractive solution to this ongoing dilemma would be to put Venables beyond the reach of the long arm of the law, in effect, to make him a law unto himself, and immune from prosecution. The worst possible solution is the one now confronting the Ministry of Justice, which has only itself to blame by making public the arrest of Venables for “serious” criminal offences. If the injunction, followed by the creation of a new identity, was to have any meaning, why the announcement, followed by the media frenzy and unhelpful and ill-thought-out comments by Jamie’s mother?
Too late for regrets, but there is a lesson to be learned by those who should have known better. Venables is not the only one who is in need of a sharp learning curve.
David Osborne
David was called to the English Bar in 1974 and to the Irish Bar in 1986. He is head of his own chambers based in London and Somerset. He offers specialist advice and representation in a wide variety of legal disciplines, and is accredited by the Bar Council to accept instructions direct from lay clients.
During his long and successful career, David has appeared in the highest courts in the land, including the Old Bailey, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. He is the author of the popular blog, The Barrister Bard. You can visit his website at http://www.david-osborne.com.
And so it was with Venables, and Thompson, his partner in crime. When Venables was due for release, the High Court was persuaded that Article 2 applied, apparently on the back of threats from Jamie Bulger’s father. In the circumstances, it was curious that he was never arrested or prosecuted, which in turn calls into question the reasoning behind the granting of the injunction. erhaps it matters not, but in the event, Venables was granted anonymity, and with it, a new identity.
Whilst to many, the very idea of granting anonymity to the perpetrators of heinous crime is repellent, but there is always a risk that vigilantes will take the law into their own hands. Sadly, most of these “vigilantes” come from the bottom of the aquarium, and there is no knowing what they might do; the more so if the object of their attentions is an innocent bystander, as has happened in the past.
A new identity is no easy task to achieve. It needs ingenuity, total credibility, and above all, careful and painstaking schooling in the new life that lies ahead. Given that Venables was poorly educated and abused as a child – no easy task to perform. Creating and monitoring a new identity also costs thousands of pounds, so blowing it has serious consequences.
Jack Straw finds himself on the horns of a dilemma, and for once, a crisis not entirely of his own making. By returning Venables to prison, his new identity has almost certainly been blown. Those of us who have worked within the prison culture know full well that there are no secrets within the prison community, and news of this magnitude will spread like wildfire. And as we have seen many times in other high profile cases, the intentions of the legislature and the courts can be defeated by the internet.
So it boils down to a stark choice between protecting Venables’ identity, too late for that, or after “due process”, starting all over again when he is released once more from custody. The learning curve for Venables will have to start from scratch, with more schooling, and more money, and no certainty that this exercise will have to be repeated, again and again.
The simple yet unattractive solution to this ongoing dilemma would be to put Venables beyond the reach of the long arm of the law, in effect, to make him a law unto himself, and immune from prosecution. The worst possible solution is the one now confronting the Ministry of Justice, which has only itself to blame by making public the arrest of Venables for “serious” criminal offences. If the injunction, followed by the creation of a new identity, was to have any meaning, why the announcement, followed by the media frenzy and unhelpful and ill-thought-out comments by Jamie’s mother?
Too late for regrets, but there is a lesson to be learned by those who should have known better. Venables is not the only one who is in need of a sharp learning curve.
David Osborne
David was called to the English Bar in 1974 and to the Irish Bar in 1986. He is head of his own chambers based in London and Somerset. He offers specialist advice and representation in a wide variety of legal disciplines, and is accredited by the Bar Council to accept instructions direct from lay clients.
During his long and successful career, David has appeared in the highest courts in the land, including the Old Bailey, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. He is the author of the popular blog, The Barrister Bard. You can visit his website at http://www.david-osborne.com.
Comments