🔗 Share this article

A politician from New South Wales has utilized legislative immunity to reveal the name of a man earlier accused in relation to the alleged kidnapping and killing of UK-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Disappearance at Fairy Meadow Beach

Grimmer vanished from near a bathhouse while accompanying her mother and three older brothers at the seaside in the Illawarra region of New South Wales on 12 January 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Pseudonym

The suspect, known under the pseudonym “Mercury,” underwent a trial in 2018 after entering not guilty. Yet, the proceedings ended when a judge ruled that a nineteen seventy-one police interview where he admitted to the murder was not admissible.

Mercury made the reported confession, which was the foundation of the crown’s case, when he was seventeen years old and still a minor under NSW law, and under 18 months after the child disappeared.

Legislative Revelation

On Thursday, Jeremy Buckingham revealed the name of the suspect while protected under parliamentary privilege.

Guardian Australia is opting not to name the man. The man could not lawfully be publicly identified during the 2018 because he was aged fifteen at the time of the reported offending.

Legislative Intervention

Before the MP revealing the name, the speaker of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He asked if the member was about to divulge the name, which is presently required to be suppressed by legal order.

The president said: “May I just make these observations before you proceed under immunity, a legislator is shielded from the repercussions which would otherwise result from breaching a legal order of this kind, which could otherwise amount to a contempt of court.”

“However, all legislators have the responsibility to use their privilege responsibly, and this chamber can take action against members who are judged by the assembly to have misused privilege. The comity between the parliament and the judiciary should not be treated lightly, and I urge the member to consider these matters carefully before continuing.”

Family Ultimatum

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

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

Investigation Revived

Police reopened the case after a 2011 coroner’s report ruled that the child was dead and advised that police reinvestigate.

The suspect was taken into custody in March 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was released a later after the interrogation was ruled unacceptable.

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

Confession Details

During the trial, the tribunal heard that during an interview with police in the early 1970s, the accused had admitted to killing Grimmer, telling officers he had planned to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before allegedly murdering her.

Judicial Decision

But Justice Robert Allan Hulme ruled the interrogation could not be used as evidence in the trial.

In his ruling in the NSW supreme court, the justice said the questioning was inadmissible because of the way in which it was conducted and the specific susceptibility of the accused at the time.

“Neither a guardian, grown-up or lawyer was present at any point of the interrogation,” the justice said.

He heard evidence from mental health experts who agreed that the teenager had a low IQ, was undeveloped and more at-risk than the typical 17-year-old.

History of the Defendant

The court heard the suspect had a strained connection with his parents, a record of running away from his residence, relocating internationally, low intellect and restricted education.

The crown argued that at the time of the interview, there were no mandatory requirements or standards for an guardian to be there when questioning minors.

The additional information before the judge was composed of records from the time and reports from the early seventies, obtained from his involvement with the juvenile justice system.