Denise Bulger felt her son's killers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, were given 'the best of everything', trampling on justice and the little boy's memory

For 13 days after the murder of her child, Denise Bulger remained hidden from public view. Grief and anger sequestered her in the high-rise flat in the Kirkby area of Liverpool she shared with her husband Ralph in February 1993.

But on the day her two-year-old son James's 3ft 4in coffin was taken to the Sacred Heart Church, she stepped out into the fourth car of a 14-vehicle cortege and drove not just to her child's funeral but straight into the heart of a debate that continues to rage to this day.

As the 25-year-old emerged from the church, where she had wept as Michael Jackson's Heal the World [her son's favourite song] was played, she could hardly have known that, almost 20 years later, her world would still not have healed, or that her grief and fury would have failed to subside. The woman who kept her pain personal for those 13 days has remained so angry, she refuses to allow her voice to stay unheard.

"I still have the hate inside me from the day they murdered my James. There will be no closure for me," she said, a few years ago. "I want people to know that I haven't given up."

Denise Bulger – now called Fergus, a remarried mother-of-three – campaigned, unsuccessfully, for Thompson and Venables to be kept in prison for the rest of their lives and for that sentence be served in an adult jail. The pair were released after eight years of their sentence in a young offenders' institute.

Backed by her former husband Ralph and members of her large, working-class Catholic family, she has ensured that, while her son's killers have a new identity, their old ones are never forgotten. She even told the News of the World how she tracked Robert Thompson down, was "paralysed with hatred" and could not bring herself to confront him.

At the murder trial in November 1993 a pregnant Denise Bulger sat in the public gallery, holding hands with her husband and looking down into the dock that held the killers. In spite of their age, she never saw them as children – a sentiment many had great sympathy with. But they were children all the same.

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables sat on specially raised chairs so they could see over the dock to Mr Justice Morland. The pair had turned 11 by the time of their court case and they were puffy and fat from incarceration and bemused, baffled and bored by the adult proceedings unfolding before them.

In a magazine interview, Denise Fergus said later: "In the courtroom, I could only see their backs. I watched in disgust as their shoulders shuddered. The press reported that they were crying but I swear their shudders were down to arrogant giggles. Were they sorry? Were they hell."

But Venables did often cry, seeking a caring glance from his mother, Susan, who instead fidgeted with her handbag, applied some make-up, did anything but look at her son.

The court had heard of the breakdown of both the boys' families, of alcoholism, physical abuse, poverty and wanton neglect. But it also heard of a battering inflicted on a petrified James that was so extreme, Laurence Lee, Venables's lawyer, still suffers from nightmares. Few will forget the detail they tried to keep from the court of the batteries rammed into the boy's anus.

Yesterday, as he interviewed her on ITV's This Morning, Phillip Schofield suggested there may have been other motivating factors behind the violence from the two 10-year-olds. Denise Fergus said she had never been able to believe that. She said: "The two of them are pure evil in my eyes.

"There's kids out there in worse circumstances than that and they do not choose to go and murder somebody else's child. And if they are the messages that the law offices are sending out, then they should be changed because there are more and more kids now killing other kids because of Thompson and Venables's release, because they have been rewarded for what they've done rather than punished," she said. "They have given them the best of everything. They were treated and still are getting treated like stars."

With Venables returned to custody, her ire has been stoked again; her prediction that her son's killers would reoffend have partly come true.

In an interview with the Observer two years ago, she said: "They were 10 years of age but much, much older in their minds. They knew full well what they were doing, yet they've never shown a single shred of remorse."

Yet when a tearful Venables confessed to the killing, he had said: "What about his Mum? Tell her I am sorry."

For Denise Fergus, "sorry" will never be good enough. Nothing that falls into line with British justice ever will.

Audrey Gillan covered the James Bulger case from when it was just a simple disappearance through to the discovery of his body, and went on to write about the hunt for his killers and their arrest and subsequent trial

Government would be able to defend case without revealing arguments or evidence against claimants, say lawyers

The government is trying to create a new form of secret trial that would introduce "fundamental unfairness" into the civil law, the court of appeal heard today.

If successful, the government would be able to defend a case brought by seven men who say they suffered extraordinary rendition and torture without revealing the arguments or evidence against them. Instead, the claim would be conducted by "special advocates" – specially vetted lawyers appointed by the court who cannot discuss the case with their clients.

The men, who include the high-profile former Guantánamo Bay detainees Binyam Mohamed and Moazzam Begg, are claiming damages for their detention and mistreatment, accusing British security services of complicity.

In a three-day hearing that began today, lawyers representing the claimants said the use of special advocates was fundamentally at odds with English legal traditions and principles. "This is very straightforward," said Dinah Rose QC, representing five of the men including Mohamed. "This has never been allowed in the history of the common law. Permitting it has always been regarded as against the adversarial nature of our legal system, against the principle of equality of arms and against natural justice."

Civil trials have never been conducted in secret, experts say, although some aspects of cases have been kept private using a procedure known as public interest immunity.

The current hearing is to decide whether large parts of the security services' and government's defence can be kept secret from the former detainees, their lawyers and the public. The case comes after repeated criticisms by the courts of the use of secrecy and special advocates by the government.

"The special advocate procedure has served as a figleaf for fundamental unfairness," Rose said. "The process looks like a normal trial and sounds like a normal trial, but it is not a trial at all. It is something completely different."

Lawyers representing the men say that introducing secrecy in the civil courts would also be impractical.

The master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, said that the court should consider how a scheme involving special advocates in the civil courts would work. "The practical implications as well as the principle are worth considering," he said.

The government argues it should have "maximum flexibility" to decide whether all or part of the case should be heard in secret after a previous high court ruling that civil hearings could be held in secret.

John Heibner spent 25 years behind bars for 1976 London murder amid 'extraordinarily murky period of justice', says lawyer

The case of a man convicted of a murder in London nearly 35 years ago is to be sent back to the court of appeal. Campaigners claim that the case is one of Britain's longest-running miscarriages of justice.

John Heibner, then 30, was jailed for life in 1976 for the contract killing of Beatrice "Biddy" Gold, who was shot dead the previous year in the basement office of the clothing business she ran with her husband in Clerkenwell, east London. Heibner, now 64, served more than a quarter of a century in prison, protesting his innocence throughout.

A spokesman for the Criminal Cases Review Commission confirmed that the case was to be referred back. "Having considered a rage of issues, including the admissibility and treatment of confession evidence at trial, and new evidence relating to a witness at trial, the commission is referring the conviction to the court of appeal because it considers that there is a real possibility that the court may not uphold the conviction," said a spokesperson.

Heibner said today: "It has been a very long road. I have fought very hard for this but, from day one, I have always believed that it would be referred back eventually. I am obviously very happy that it has finally happened."

His lawyer, Rhona Friedman, said the case represented one of the last cases of alleged miscarriage of justice left unexamined by the courts from the 1970s. She described it as "an extraordinarily murky episode in our criminal justice system" and added: "We hope that the court of appeal will shine a light on what has gone on and that finally this miscarriage of justice will be put right."

Heibner served more than 25 years before he was considered for release. He now lives in east London and has continued a campaign to clear his name after his release from jail. His case, which was reported in the Guardian in 2006, was first sent to the CCRC, set up to examine alleged wrongful convictions, in 2002.

On the day of the murder in September 1975, Gold had been at the office with her husband, Eric, and their colleague, Sheila Brown. Mr Gold and Brown went shopping at the end of the day – by the time they returned Beatrice Gold was dead, having been shot three times with a .32 revolver.

Heibner was known to police as an armed robber who operated in the area. Born in Cape Town, he had come to London as a boy with his father after his mother died. After service in the merchant navy, he became involved in crime and was sent to borstal for a street robbery in London in 1963. At the time of the murder he was facing a 15-year sentence for an armed robbery to which he had admitted.

The police interviewed Heibner and other known criminals in the area before he and another man were charged. At the heart of his conviction was a disputed confession which Heibner contested at the trial. There were also arguments about the nature of his police interviews. An appeal against the conviction in 1978 was unsuccessful. However, Lord Justice Shaw suggested at the hearing that the then home secretary should undertake an investigation. The Metropolitan police conducted an inquiry and a report was submitted to the then home secretary but no action was taken.

Heibner has had support from a number of prominent figures in his bid to have his case reopened. Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, has made a number of calls for his case to be referred back. The Rev Nick Stacey, former director of social services for Kent, who met Heibner when he was in Maidstone prison, became convinced of his innocence and has written to successive home secretaries on his behalf. Rhona Friedman paid tribute yesterday to their "steadfast" support.

A total of 12,451 cases have been submitted to the CCRC since it was set up in 1997. Of these, 447 have been referred back to the court of appeal, of which 290 have resulted in a quashed conviction.

Top official Sir Bill Jeffrey says spending of defence programme 'has exceeded our ability to pay for it'

The armed forces went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan with "an outdated stock of armoured vehicles", the top official at the Ministry of Defence has told the Chilcot inquiry.

Echoing the evidence of other senior defence officials, Sir Bill Jeffrey said there had been "a serious dispute" between the Treasury under Gordon Brown and the MoD in 2004 about spending. The Treasury had blocked MoD attempts to use Whitehall accounting and efficiency measures to spend more on new equipment.

"That undoubtedly left the department with a significant problem because the estimated cost of the programme exceeded the budget," said Jeffrey, the MoD's permanent secretary.

The prime minister told the inquiry last week that if the government had allowed every department to do what the MoD wanted to do, the extra cost would have amounted to £12bn – the equivalent, he said, to raising income tax by 3p in the pound.

Jeffrey said the "real problem" was that the cost of the defence programme "has exceeded our ability to pay for it". He told the inquiry the defence budget had been squeezed by rising staff and equipment costs, the "side-effects" of the Iraq and Afghan wars, and the fall in the value of the pound.

He added: "All that means not that defence is 'underfunded' or has been cut, but that we have a very serious management issue."

However, his cautious remarks did not dampen the partisan row over evidence about money and equipment made available to the armed forces, which the inquiry has been so keen to avoid.

Sir John Chilcot, its chairman, repeated his assertion that the inquiry would not be caught up in the general election campaign, as it heard its last witness this side of polling day.

But Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, later wrote to Chilcot asking for Brown to be recalled to "clarify his evidence". He added: "There have been so many other witnesses whose evidence directly contradicted his, concluding with Bill Jeffrey today, that there is a clear case for questioning Gordon Brown again."

Defence officials admit privately that the real problem was the refusal of ministers and defence chiefs over the last few years to abandon or cut projects they knew the MoD could not afford, compounded by the slow MoD decision-making process in ordering and choosing new equipment even if it was considered a priority.

On the issue of the vulnerability of Snatch Land Rovers, Jeffrey told the inquiry: "The fundamental problem is that for some purposes military commanders will always argue that a highly mobile, lightweight vehicle of that sort is important and indeed operationally critical in some cases."

British Waterways chairman Tony Hales says fear of cuts is behind move to leave state control

The renaissance of Britain's canals is one of the big regeneration successes of the last two decades. They transport the tranquillity of the countryside to the heart of the city, provide a haven for wildlife and offer a picturesque setting for some of the most desirable urban homes.

But proposals to be submitted this month by British Waterways, the guardian of 2,200 miles of canals and rivers, seek to move them out of direct state control and into the "third sector", arguing the move is the only way to safeguard their future.

The vision is for an "aquatic National Trust" galvanising the estimated 11 million Britons who regularly benefit from them – boaters, anglers, cyclists, runners, Sunday strollers and waterside property dwellers – to invest time and money to protecting them for generations to come.

"Of course there are risks. Yes, it is radical. But I believe it is a no-lose call, and something has to be done," said Tony Hales, chairman of British Waterways. "The waterways are not about to collapse overnight. But over 10, 20 years, if we don't accelerate investment, the network will deteriorate."

With public spending cuts inevitable whichever party is in power and an anticipated reduction in the grant British Waterways receives from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hales believes the time is right. The proposals follow an 18-month consultation, and aim to bring the running of canals closer to the people using them.

Hales believes there is the goodwill to pull it off. "There is tremendous affection for the waterways," he said. "The canal boat is right up there with the postbox as one of the iconic images of British life.

"Of course, it can't be exactly like the National Trust, where you get a pass into 50 buildings others have had to pay £30 for. And we would have to completely rebrand our image. What's in it for people? A nice, warm feeling and the opportunity to get involved. There is an army of volunteers out there already clearing, restoring, maintaining."

Third-sector status would allow British Waterways to borrow for long-term investment, something it cannot do as a public corporation, while retaining a government grant on a renegotiated basis to fulfil statutory obligations for public health, safety and benefit.

Hales said: "Why does a taxpayer in Blackpool fund the Regent's canal in London? Why shouldn't people living on, benefiting from, overlooking the Regent's canal make some contribution towards it, in the form of money or volunteering, instead of it all coming from central government?

"[Canals] are a valuable asset, one that local authorities benefit from. And if I own a brand new flat in Birmingham, I'm not going to sit there and do nothing if the canal I overlook is full of floating dead dogs, or the tow paths are covered in dog shit, or the lock gates don't work, and the value of my property is going down. I'm going to get involved.""

Third-sector status would also allow British Waterways to safeguard its £500m property portfolio, which generates £45m a year. In times of crisis the Treasury's eye often alights on this asset, but so far British Waterways has resisted a sell-off.

"£500m is not much, in terms of the national debt," Hales said. Nevertheless, the Treasury, he admits, could be the fly in the ointment for the proposals.

Other fundraising initiatives being explored include the micro-generation of renewable energy, and the sale of "grey", or undrinkable, water to industry.

British Waterways has an annual income of £255m, including a £74m government grant. The grant's value has fallen by 47% in real terms since 2003. Hales expects it to fall further, and wonders if it can continue competing for the taxpayers' money required to maintain the network.

Organisations representing Britain's 33,000 boaters and three million anglers agree something has to be done.

"The risk is not getting the necessary revenue to make the whole thing work. But they have to do something radical," said Mark Lloyd of the Angling Trust.

Brian Sharpe, editor of Towpath Talk magazine, said: "There is a lot of pressure get out of this mess, and I think it is a mess. It's going to be a legal minefield.

"It could go very wrong, but then it can't be any worse than it is at the moment".

Death on foot patrol brings British toll to six in one week in hotly disputed area of Sangin

Another British soldier has been killed near Sangin in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today.

The British soldier, from 1 Rifles, the sixth to be killed in the Sangin area within a week, died from an explosion while on foot patrol, the MoD said.

The soldier's death brings the number of British military casualties in Afghanistan since the conflict began in 2001 to 272. On Sunday, the MoD named the two teenagers killed in separate incidents there on Friday and Saturday as Rifleman Jonathon Allott, 19, from Bournemouth, and Rifleman Liam Maughan, 18, from Doncaster. Both men were members of 3rd Battalion The Rifles.

The MoD also announced yesterdaythat a soldier from 4 Rifles had been shot dead. The soldier, attached to the same battalion as the teenage casualties, was shot when his patrol base came under attack from insurgents.

Last Tuesday, Corporal Richard Green, 23, from Reading, was shot dead while at a checkpoint near Sangin. Last Monday, March 1, Rifleman Carlo Apolis of 4th Battalion The Rifles, was killed by a gunshot wound, also in Sangin.

Defence spokesman Major General Gordon Messenger described Sangin as an area that mattered "deeply both to the Taliban and the Afghan government". That was why it was so keenly contested, he said.

Sangin lies north of the area taken by thousands of US, UK, and Afghan troops in Operation Moshtarak, prompting speculation that the Taliban had fled to Sangin where British soldiers could be considered as more vulnerable.

Messenger said there was no evidence that the number of attacks on British troops in the area was due to fighters moving away from the Operation Moshtarak area. He added: "We cannot discount, however, that the upsurge in activity is a deliberate ploy by the Taliban leadership to deflect attention from the successes in central Helmand."

• Abuse 'not only wrong but self-defeating', says Rammell
• MoD to set up special unit to investigate Iraq allegations

Training of British soldiers is to be improved to avoid abuse of civilian detainees and better reflect the demands of future warfare, the government disclosed today.

In a related development, the Ministry of Defence is setting up a special unit to investigate all allegations of abuse of Iraqis by UK troops. The Iraq historic allegations team is a response to the MoD's failure to deal with a string of complaints from lawyers representing former detainees.

The moves were announced today by Bill Rammell, the armed forces minister, on the eve of the opening of a new public inquiry into claims that British soldiers murdered and mistreated Iraqi prisoners.

"Fighting amongst the people and under judgment of the people in very difficult circumstances has become the norm, and it is increasingly likely to be that way," Rammell told the Royal United Services Institute. "How our forces opereate in a cluttered and confusing environment will impact on support from civilians in theatre and support at home."

He added: "More than ever before, the abuse of detainees, mistreatment of civilians and the unnecessary destruction of property or livelihood an tragic loss of civilian life – these are not only wrong but self-defeating."

The armed forces "do not always recruit angels", Rammell said, stressing the need for robust training for recruits who would need "to display aggression and single-mindedness in battle, coupled with self-control, judgment and sensitivity to situation and context".

The MoD has hired a former senior police officer of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, Mark Lewindon, to monitor its training policy. It will also draw up a new report updating a study by Brigadier Robert Aitken, the army's director of army personnel strategy, two years ago.

His report identified serious failings in army training and planning for the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath – failings since highlighted by the Chilcot inquiry. It was ordered after a number of cases alleging ill-treatment by British troops, notably the death of Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel receptionist, in September 2003.

He suffered 93 injuries while in British custody. Eight other Iraqi civilians were abused.

The Mousa case is the subject of a public inquiry which has heard evidence that British troops and their officers ignored, misunderstood, or were simply unaware of "five techniques" – wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink.

Though these were banned by the British government in 1972 following their use in Northern Ireland, Aitken found they were still not proscribed in the army's military doctrine.

Rammell referred today to these "proscribed technques". However, he added that "no one should jump to the conclusion that every allegation is true", and that there was "no evidence whatsoever of a culture of widespread abuse of detainees by British service personnel".

He said if allegations that British troops murdered and mutiliated up to 20 Iraqis after a fierce fight, known as the "battle for Danny Boy", near the town of Majar-al-Kabir in Maysan province, north of Basra, in May 2004, were true, they must have been involved in a "massive conspiracy".

Ministers and defence officials have always insisted that the allegations are false. However, the government was pressed by the courts to set up a public inquiry as it had failed to meet Human Rights Act obligations for a timely and independent investigation for alleged wrongdoing by agents of the state, including soldiers.

The inquiry into allegations made by six Iraqis including Khuder al-Sweady, uncle of teenager Hamid al-Sweady, one of the 20 who died during the Danny Boy incident, opens in London tomorrow.

The MoD belatedly disclosed crucial documents about the case to the high court. Contrary to evidence in court from MoD officials, the Iraqis had complained to the Red Cross about their treatment shortly after the incident, and that was known by ministers, the high court heard in pre-inquiry hearings last year.

"My greatest fear is that uncertainty created by these unproven allegations risks unfairly undermining the reputation and achievements of our armed forces," Rammell said today.

Violinist and Polish jazz band to improvise during screening of match as part of Southbank festival of Polish culture

It was one of the most traumatic matches in England's football history, the one where that "clown" Jan Tomaszewski made save after save ensuring Poland went to the World Cup and – unthinkably – England didn't. So the decision by the violinist Nigel Kennedy to screen it at the Royal Festival Hall just weeks before this year's World Cup may, at the very least, raise eyebrows.

The Southbank Centre in London, Europe's biggest arts centre, has announced it is handing its buildings over to Kennedy to create a "miniature Poland" on the Thames during this year's late May bank holiday weekend. The maverick violinist, a passionate Aston Villa fan who moved to Krakow several years ago, will curate a weekend of events as the culmination of a year of cultural activities that have taken place under the banner Polska!

His most eye-catching concert will be a screening of the 1973 England v Poland match, albeit without the Barry Davies commentary. Instead it will be accompanied by Kennedy and Polish jazz musicians playing a semi-improvised score.

Kennedy said the match perfectly represented "what the whole festival is about, which is bringing Polish culture into England".

Those England fans who watched in disbelief 37 years ago might, of course, see it differently. Whichever team won went through to the 1974 world cup finals in West Germany. The papers were full of scorn for Poland and Brian Clough was typically not shy in giving his opinion, calling the goalkeeper Tomaszewski "a clown".

But it was the clown who effectively put Poland through with a string of impressive saves.The draw meant England were out for the first time. The nation went to work the next day depressed and shocked. Sir Alf Ramsay was, humiliatingly, sacked as manager.

Happy days, then. Kennedy said his decision to screen it was fuelled by his belief in the similarities between football and music. "Football brings a lot of people together and music is obviously designed expressly for that purpose. They're also both shared things across all nations."

The weekend will also see the British debut of Kennedy's Orchestra of Life, an ensemble of young Polish musicians brought together by the violinist who will perform a programme featuring music by Bach and Duke Ellington.

Kennedy said of the orchestra: "I love working with young people who are open-minded and flexible and who have a real energy and vivacity in their approach to music. These young cats show the discipline and spontaneity of Polish culture."

Other highlights include a celebratory concert by "Nigel Kennedy's Chopin Super Group" featuring Janusz Olejniczak, who played the piano music in Roman Polanski's film The Pianist.

Kennedy, the boy prodigy who became the brandy drinking diamond geezer, has lived in Poland for some time. "I'm well into the Polish life," he said. "Ranging from the music and football through to the brilliant beer and vodka. Poland has an incredibly rich environment for all music. I'm sure I've had a much better chance to develop as a musician because all of these live forms of music that are very prevalent in Polish music.

"I wanted to bring some Polish culture over to London and make the Southbank Centre into a miniature Poland for a while."

Nigel Kennedy's FA Project: England v Poland 1973 will take place on the evening of Sunday 30 May. The England fans who do put themselves through watching the match afresh will have, of course, some consolation. Poland failed to qualify for this year's finals in South Africa.

Head of strategy at loggerheads with party over plan to help lowliest workers in government departments

David Cameron's head of strategy is losing a battle that would see the Conservative party introduce a higher minimum wage across Whitehall, the Guardian has learned. Steve Hilton wants his party to announce a higher rate, the so-called "living wage" of £7.60 – which is £1.80 more than the minimum wage – for low paid workers employed as cleaners and catering staff across government departments in London if the Tories win the election.

Hilton, one of the leading modernisers around Cameron, has cast it as a first step towards bringing in the new rate more widely across the country as he pushes for policies that prove the Conservatives will represent the less well-off. The move would have brought Whitehall into line with Boris Johnson's London mayoralty, and with Barack Obama who last week announced he wanted a living wage paid in all government procurement contracts.

However Hilton, one of Cameron's most trusted advisers, appears to have been defeated by his colleagues after he told London Citizens – the group campaigning for a living wage – last month that Cameron would announce the policy four days later at a press conference hosted by them. The event was cancelled and not rescheduled.

Hilton's Conservative colleagues have reservations on timing and more profound objections, arguing the introduction of a higher rate of pay is unaffordable during the economic downturn.

London Citizens says the government should start by using its procurement policy to award contracts to companies paying a living wage, eventually putting pressure on more private companies to follow suit. The new higher wage should not supersede the statutory minimum wage but instead become a mark of best practice. As well as City Hall, HSBC, KPMG and Barclays have been persuaded by the group to pay a living wage. While Labour's grassroots would be upset if the Tories made overtures to low paid workers, the government is less anxious.

The business secretary, Lord Mandelson, was aware the Tories were planning to push for a Whitehall living wage since Cameron was due to make his announcement two weeks ago, but did not rush out any policy of his own.

Ed Miliband, in charge of writing Labour's manifesto, had already commissioned the Treasury to cost a wage increase across Whitehall. The government is critical of Hilton's chosen type of living wage, believing it to be a Londoncentric low pay policy. However, officials working on the policy also believe a national public sector living wage to be unaffordable, "running to billions of pounds". The Treasury is instead working on how the principle of a living wage could be used to help the poorest workers. A London Citizens spokesman said: "Because of what Boris did in London, the fire brigade, for instance, now have to pay their cleaning staff a bit more but it's had a great effect on the private sector and if national government can do the same then who knows what effect it will have on firms across the country.

"If you could get Tesco to pay its staff a living wage then the Treasury would save a lot of money. You wouldn't have to pay out so much in tax credits because people who worked for them would have a better basic rate of pay."

The move would have been a daring example of political repositioning as the Tories try to cast themselves as the "heirs to Blair". The introduction of the minimum wage was one of the first acts of New Labour, coming into force in 1999. It was opposed by the Conservatives.

Justice secretary says bowing to tabloid demands for details of Bulger killer's alleged new crime would harm justice

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, has refused tabloid demands to say why one of James Bulger's killers had his probation revoked. Straw insisted it was critical that Jon Venables be able to get a fair trial in future.

Answering an urgent question on Venables in the Commons, Straw told MPs that divulging more details would not be in the interests of justice. He gave a clear hint that the allegations did not involve Venables killing or seriously injuring anybody.

His statement came a few hours after James Bulger's mother, Denise Fergus, expressed her fury at the government's handling of the case and called for the sacking of the mentoring team that was overseeing Venables' supervision.

Straw told the Commons: "I fully understand the concern of James Bulger's parents and the wider public about this case and indeed the frustration voiced by James's mother, Mrs Fergus, that insufficient information has been provided to her.

"As I indicated earlier today, I have been giving further active consideration as to whether it would be appropriate to provide more information. But in the event, I have concluded this would not presently be in the interests of justice."

He disclosed that initially it was discovered that Venables's new identity had been compromised and only then was it established that he had committed a further offence. It has been widely reported that the offence is connected with possession of computer images of child pornography but Straw made no comment on that detail.

Straw did try to reassure Fergus by reiterating that if Venables was charged with a serious further offence there would be a "thorough review" of his probation supervision since he was released on a life licence in 2001.

The 27-year-old was jailed in 1993 along with Robert Thompson for the murder of James Bulger, aged two, after the pair abducted him from a shopping centre in Bootle, Liverpool.

In an interview with ITV's This Morning programme , Fergus renewed her demand to know why his probation was revoked, saying she was "sick of them closing doors in my face". But in a move that will undermine the tabloid campaign, she added that she would wait for the details rather than jeopardise any future trial.

"But then I'll be asking the question, OK then, once it's all done and dusted will I then get to know the full details of what they've been doing in the nine years since their release?"

Straw's promise of a thorough review of Venables's supervision by the probation service since his release in 2001 was an attempt to meet that demand.

He indicated that "active consideration" was being given to protecting Venables's safety while he is in prison.

MPs from all parties supported Straw in not giving in to what they called "tabloid justice" or "lynch mob law in prison", with senior Liberal Democrat and Conservative figures saying the rule of law was more important than the interests of competing tabloid newspapers.