Press freedom is vital

The chairman of the Parole Board has rightly apologised after some victims of John Worboys were not told about his release, but for many this won’t be enough. Worboys, say police, could have been responsible for more than 100 offences, and yet, having served his minimum sentence, will go direct from a category A prison to freedom.

And just 24 hours after this was discovered, it was also reported that Jon Venables, one of the killers of the toddler James Bulger, has been charged, yet again, with possession of child pornography – and will enjoy the protection of a secret trial.

Yes, Venables has certain rights, and the ongoing threats to his life justify reporting on his situation with care. But the public interest in his case is precisely what justifies press coverage.

The Bulger murder was one of the most shocking in British history. Venables was given ample opportunity to reform and, if he had transformed his character, he might have lived the rest of his life out in peace. But this will be the second occasion on which he faces charges for possessing indecent images.

Denise Fergus, the mother of Bulger, said that when Venables was arrested last year, she was “the last to know” and was informed only hours before it was publicised. Her pain is reminiscent of the victims who were left to discover via the media that Worboys was being released. Too often, the rights of offenders seem sacrosanct while those of victims are overlooked.

One vital remedy is proper press coverage: justice must be fair and open, and journalists must be free to do their job, to subject the system to scrutiny.