Silence over Jon Venables raises so many questions

Add into the mix the fact that Straw, throughout his political career, has been known as a common sense politician who is largely in touch with the thoughts and feelings of voters, his decision to play the 'lawyers say' card seems downright out of character.

Worse still, by refusing to explain to the public why Venables, released from custody in 2001 after serving a sentence for his part in the horrific abduction and murder of defenceless James Bulger, was jailed again, he's left the door open to all sorts of other consequences.

As that well know political sage Adrian Chiles said on The One Show - not quite a barometer of public opinion, but it'll do for now - earlier this week: "It's not the week to be a Scouse 27-year-old going into prison."

In other words, handing out minimal information about such an emotive issue will, after it has caused outrage, serve only to create a strong currency in rumours, 'facts' that were heard down the pub, and assumptions which could have terrifying consequences.

Straw followed his original announcement about Venables' imprisonment by announcing last night that it was 'for serious allegations.' That washed away one suggestion that the imprisonment could have been for a minor breach of the terms of his release straight away - one defence that was put forward for not releasing more details - and only adds fuel to the angry fire.

Straw says justice needs to be done, and the only way it can be done is in secret. If it was the case that Venables' new identity could continue to be guarded come what may, then he might have a point.

But like any part of the state machine, the legal system contains more leaks than the United Utilities network. While knowledge of his new identity may have been kept under wraps when he was behaving himself, as soon as he allegedly crossed the line, a whole host of other 'agencies' may get involved.

The police, the wider probation service, courts and their various offices, the prison service, the companies ferrying the prisoners to and from court ... the risk of the information getting out by other means has increased massively. And the longer the government does give out the correct information, the greater the likelihood that someone else will.

I'm not sure I buy the notion that justice for Venables can only be done in secret. If the allegation involves a crime, and it goes to court, then surely the magistrates/judges/juries can be relied upon to only deal with the evidence presented to them during the court case.

To make the assumption that a jury couldn't handle a case involving Venables because they would know what he'd done before is to assume that the legal system just doesn't work.

Denise Fergus, James's mother, is quite rightly outraged by the lack of information, and Straw plans to meet her. But what does that achieve if he won't release any more information? And if he does tell her what is going on, then surely that puts her in a very difficult position as well.

In a week where the Government has been celebrating the success of Sarah's Law - the system which allows people to enquire if someone they suspect of being dodgy has criminal convictions - with 60 children potentially saved thanks to the discreet release of information, none of which led to vigilante attacks, it seem remarkable that Straw is orchestrating a culture of secrecy when there are so many ways of telling the public what is going on while at the same time ensuring Venables gets a fair trial.