|
answer text |
<p>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.</p><p>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</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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</p><p>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.</p>
|
|