Question to the Attorney General:

To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what applications to vary that decision have been made and on behalf of whom; how such applications were funded; and what grounds were given in support of each such application.

In 2010, Jon Venables was arrested and charged, under his new identity, with offences relating to the viewing of child pornography. On 21 June 2010, in the context of those criminal proceedings, Mr Justice Bean amended the Injunction so as to prohibit the publication of information revealed in proceedings in open court, insofar as such information would be likely to lead to the identification of (a) Venables’ then-current name; (b) the address at which he was living immediately before his recall to prison in February 2010; (c) the location at which he was, at that time, being held in custody; or (d) his then-current appearance.

Those amendments resulted from an application by Counsel for Jon Venables on the basis that revealing such information would be likely to lead to the identification of Jon Venables. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was sought by a third party

At a hearing at the Central Criminal Court on 23 July 2010 Mr Justice Bean varied the order, on the application of media organisations, to permit disclosure of the county in which Venables was living before his recall to custody. The purpose of this was to enable identification of the relevant police force and probation service involved in his supervision. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was not sought by this office. At the same time, an application by News Group and Mirror Group Newspapers, who opposed the continued prohibition of the publication of Jon Venables’ new name, was heard and rejected.

On 31 August 2012, on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice, the High Court amended the terms of the Injunction. This application would have been funded by central government. The amendment was made to ensure it prohibited any publication of a person purporting to be identified or depicted as Venables or Thompson.

On 7 February 2018, Venables was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment for three offences of making indecent photographs of children and one offence of possession of a paedophile manual. On 7 February, on the application of Jon Venables, Mr Justice Edis amended the Injunction to permit reporting of information heard in public at the hearing, though the amendments were such that the Injunction continues to protect the new identity and appearance of Venables and certain information which might be used to identify him. I am unable to say how this application was funded beause the varation was not sought by this office

There is an application currently before the Family Court brought by Mr Ralph Stephen Bulger and Mr James Patrick Bulger to vary the Injunction. Various grounds have been provided in support of this application, and it is anticipated these grounds will be finalised in the applicants’ written submissions required to be filed in this case by 23 November 2018. I am unable to say how this application is funded because the variation is not sought by this office.