THERE are good reasons why details of Jon Venables’ recall to prison cannot be discussed.

Foremost, the basis of the British justice system is that everyone should get a fair hearing, even if they had been previously found guilty of a notorious murder.

Venables will shortly appear before a court, if he is charged with a criminal offence, or before a parole board to discuss his release on licence. Those hearings would be compromised if all the evidence against him were splashed over the papers.

It might also be argued that secrecy is in the public interest to protect his identity.

The justification for this is to avoid vigilante action against him and also to safeguard the huge amounts of money and time that have been spent in creating his new identity.

However, his identity is all but blown: he is 27, has just been taken into an adult prison for the first time in his life, and his charge sheet says “breach of licence”. The prisoners inside that jail will pretty soon put together the clues and work out who he is.

The stronger argument is that it is in the public interest for all the details of this case to be revealed.

The treatment of Venables and Robert Thompson, his accomplice in the killing of James Bulger, is generally regarded as successful. We are told that the two have gained qualifications, formed mature relationships, gained employment – but the recall of Venables casts doubt on that success.

The public should know the details so they can evaluate how their money has been spent.

This is doubly important because just beginning their sentences are two brothers, aged ten and 11 (Venables and Thompson were ten when they killed), who burned, stabbed and sexually assaulted two boys, aged nine and 11, in Edlington, near Doncaster.

If Venables is shrouded in secrecy for ever, how are we to know that the same failings are not being repeated in the Edlington case and that we are not storing up terrible trouble for when they are released in the years to come?