Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger, has been returned to prison after breaching the terms of his release, the Ministry of Justice said tonight.

Venables, 27, and Robert Thompson abducted and murdered James in February 1993.

He was released from custody in 2001, but he has been recalled following the breach.

A spokesman said: "We can confirm that Jon Venables has been recalled to custody following a breach of licence conditions.

"Offenders on licence are subject to strict conditions; if they breach those conditions they are subject to immediate recall.

"There is a worldwide injunction in place that prohibits any reporting including reporting on the internet, that could identify him or his location."

Details of the nature of the breach have not been released.

Venables and Thompson were aged 10 when they embarked on a crime that stunned the world.

On February 13, 1993, they abducted James from a shopping centre and killed him on a railway line.

The toddler's battered body was found by children playing on a freight railway line 200 yards from Walton Lane police station, Liverpool, and more than two miles from the Strand shopping centre.

Days later Venables and Thompson were arrested in connection with the murder of James, and later charged. They were the youngest to be charged with murder in the 20th century.

In November that year, they were convicted following a 17-day trial at Preston Crown Court and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, the normal substitute sentence for life imprisonment when the offender is a juvenile.


Source

Originally Posted by *mazedsalv** (Post 3047372) I dont get it, why was he even released in the first place!! These 2 murdered a child, how old were they back then? If they were dangerous back then, imagine what they would be grown up!... ****ing vile bastards

Venables' solicitor, Laurence Lee, told the BBC: "He could have been recalled on licence if he committed an offence, it could be that he returned to Merseyside, it could be he might have approached the family.

"There is no evidence so far that he did any of these things."

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva (Post 3047528) Venables' solicitor, Laurence Lee, told the BBC: "He could have been recalled on licence if he committed an offence, it could be that he returned to Merseyside, it could be he might have approached the family. "There is no evidence so far that he did any of these things." It's the headlines on ITV. They are saying the breach must have been serious.

Originally Posted by Patrick (Post 3047547) Imagine being his solicitor having to defend that bitch.

Originally Posted by Sticks (Post 3048647) The way people go on about this case is disturbng, they think themselves better but express sentiment of revenge, even though they were not personally wronged. In this particular case it would be wise to see what the "breach" may have been, but also you must bear in mind that there are those out there who know how mobs behave on a collective, and going by some of the posts here they are right, and we must also remember that we are in a run up to a general election. For the moment becoming a conspiracy theorist, what better way for politicians to ingraciate themselves with a jaded public than to make an apparent decision that panders to a baying mob? Were this to happen, and I have no evidence that anyone is doing this for that motive, then they would be no better than the ceasers throwing bread into a crowd before the gladitorial games of ancient Rome.

Originally Posted by Sticks (Post 3048647) The way people go on about this case is disturbng, they think themselves better but express sentiment of revenge, even though they were not personally wronged. In this particular case it would be wise to see what the "breach" may have been, but also you must bear in mind that there are those out there who know how mobs behave on a collective, and going by some of the posts here they are right, and we must also remember that we are in a run up to a general election. For the moment becoming a conspiracy theorist, what better way for politicians to ingraciate themselves with a jaded public than to make an apparent decision that panders to a baying mob? Were this to happen, and I have no evidence that anyone is doing this for that motive, then they would be no better than the ceasers throwing bread into a crowd before the gladitorial games of ancient Rome.

Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 3049034) Which ever way you look at it, 7-8 years for what they did is a shocking sentence. Especially when you just know that the place they were locked up at was probably better equipped and more comfortable than many kids own homes. They still have their entire adult life ahead of them, in freedom. After kidnapping, torturing and killing a young boy? I just don't see how anybody can justify that sentence. They should be locked up until they are at least 30. Even just as pure punishment. And yes we should know why his parole has been revoked. We seem to know about why other criminals are re-arrested. Why are they afforded so much protection and secrecy? Everything about this case is truly shocking; from the crime itself right up to the way our judicial system has put these boys rights way above everybody elses. Plus the interference of foreign bodies in our home affairs. None of it has given Jamie Bulger or his family any sense of justice. I'd be furious if I were them.

Originally Posted by Shasown (Post 3049052) They are afforded the right for their identity to be protected because they have apparently been rehabilitated. Their psychologists, social workers and private tutors said so.