🔗 Share this article

An legislator from NSW has employed parliamentary privilege to disclose the identity of a man previously accused in connection to the alleged abduction and killing of UK-born young girl Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Disappearance at Fairy Meadow Beach

Grimmer vanished from outside a bathhouse while accompanying her parent and siblings at the seaside in the coastal district of NSW on January 12, 1970.

Court Case and Pseudonym

The man, known under the pseudonym “Mercury,” underwent a court case in two thousand eighteen after pleading not guilty. Yet, the proceedings ended when a justice determined that a 1971 interrogation where he confessed to the murder was inadmissible.

The accused made the reported confession, which was the foundation of the prosecution's case, when he was seventeen years old and still a minor under state law, and less than eighteen months after the child vanished.

Legislative Disclosure

On Thursday, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party disclosed the name of Mercury while protected under parliamentary privilege.

The media outlet is opting not to identify the man. The suspect could not lawfully be publicly identified during the 2018 because he was just 15 at the time of the reported crime.

Parliamentary Intervention

Ahead of Buckingham disclosing the name, the speaker of the Legislative Council of NSW, Ben Franklin, stopped him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to divulge the identity, which is presently required to be suppressed by court ruling.

Franklin said: “Can I just make these observations before you proceed under immunity, a legislator is shielded from the consequences which would otherwise result from breaching a court order of this nature, which could otherwise amount to a contempt of court.”

“However, all legislators have the obligation to use their immunity judiciously, and this chamber can take measures against members who are deemed by the house to have misused privilege. The comity between the legislature and the courts should not be taken for granted, and I urge the member to consider these matters carefully before proceeding.”

Family Demand

The disclosure of the suspect's identity has come after Grimmer’s family gave an unprecedented demand to the individual last week – agree to speak with them by the deadline or the MP would reveal his name in the legislature.

They also presented a file which contains the admission the man made when he was 17, according to the legislator.

Case Revived

Police reopened the case after a two thousand eleven coroner’s report ruled that Grimmer was deceased and advised that police reinvestigate.

The suspect was taken into custody in spring 2018, and was then in his 60s. He was freed a year after the interview was ruled unacceptable.

In its absence, the NSW prosecuting authority found there was insufficient evidence for the proceedings to continue.

Confession Details

During the trial, the tribunal heard that during an interview with officers in the seventies, the accused had admitted to murdering the toddler, telling officers he had planned to have “sexual relations” with the child before reportedly murdering her.

Legal Ruling

But the judge decided the interview could not be used as evidence in the trial.

In his judgment in the NSW supreme court, the justice said the interview was unacceptable because of the manner in which it was carried out and the particular vulnerability of the defendant at the time.

“No parent, grown-up or legal practitioner was in attendance at any stage of the police interview,” the judge said.

He received evidence from mental health experts who agreed that the youth had a below average IQ, was immature and more at-risk than the average 17-year-old.

Background of the Accused

The tribunal heard the suspect had a strained relationship with his parents, a history of fleeing from home, relocating internationally, low intellect and restricted education.

The prosecution argued that at the time of the questioning, there were no compulsory rules or guidelines for an adult support person to be present when interviewing minors.

The additional information before the judge was made up of contemporaneous records and documents from 1970-71, obtained from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.