ABSTRACT
The reason we have started with the Bulger case is not for effect, nor to regurgitate what has been written many times before; but was simply because of timing. Seventeen years on, just as we were preparing to hand this Handbook to our publisher, news came through that on 2March 2010, Jon Venables had been recalled to prison for breaching his licence conditions. The immediate visibility of this event throughout the national media, on news channels and radio ‘phone-ins’, indicates that it is still a case that matters. Initial reports simply stated that he had been returned to prison because of breaching his licence, but no details as to the exact nature of the breach or breaches were forthcoming. As news spread of his recall, speculation grew as to what had happened. Was he recalled for a breach in his licence conditions, or had he committed another criminal offence? These questions were put to the then Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, who said he would not disclose the details of Venables’ recall:
I’m sorry that I cannot give more information at this stage on the nature of the alleged breach. I know there is an intense public interest in why he has been recalled. I would like to give that information but I’m sorry that for good reasons I can’t and that’s in the public interest. (Travis 2010)
Issues of ‘public disclosure’ and in the ‘best interest of the public’ have become the sociological shorthand of public protection discourse in recent years. They are thrown at all sorts of public protection issues, from child neglect and abuse (for example the Climbié and Baby Peter cases), to police investigations into hate crime (for example the Lawrence case), through to serious further offence cases such as Anthony Rice and Dano Sonnex. Interestingly, these framed discourses are often used for diametrically opposing reasons – to both hide the truth and to find out the truth. For example, those closest to the Bulger case (including his parents) also became vocal regarding the recall of Venables, and criticised the handling of this by asking for the public disclosure of why he had been returned to prison (Blake and Roberts 2010). As usual the media had their own agenda and began to speculate into what had happened, citing the following reasons for Venables’ recall: violence outside a nightclub (Blake and Roberts 2010); the abuse of ecstasy and cocaine (Booth 2010); and getting into a fight at work (Booth 2010). The bigger question this incident has raised, though, is just how successful the rehabilitation of Venables and Thompson has actually been. This is just one arm of the public protection machine. Protecting the public from danger and harm from others spans the entire process of the criminal justice system, and covers:
• Crime prevention – for example, through the work of proactive police investigations, the work of the National Offender Management Service, and the safeguarding children agenda.
