🔗 Share this article

A politician from NSW has employed parliamentary privilege to disclose the name of a man previously accused in connection to the alleged kidnapping and killing of UK-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Vanishing at Coastal Area

Grimmer disappeared from near a shower block while with her parent and three older brothers at Fairy Meadow beach in the coastal district of New South Wales on January 12, 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Alias

The man, referred to under the pseudonym “Mercury,” underwent a trial in two thousand eighteen after entering not guilty. However, the proceedings collapsed when a justice determined that a 1971 interrogation where he confessed to the murder was inadmissible.

Mercury made the reported admission, which was the foundation of the crown’s case, when he was seventeen years old and still a minor under NSW law, and less than 18 months after Grimmer vanished.

Parliamentary Revelation

On the day, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party revealed the identity of Mercury while protected under legislative immunity.

Guardian Australia is choosing not to name the individual. The suspect could not lawfully be publicly identified during the 2018 because he was just 15 at the time of the alleged crime.

Parliamentary Intervention

Before Buckingham revealing the identity, the president of the Legislative Council of NSW, Ben Franklin, stopped him. He asked if the member was about to reveal the name, which is presently required to be withheld by court ruling.

Franklin said: “Can I just make these observations before you proceed under privilege, a member is protected from the repercussions which would normally result from breaching a legal order of this kind, which could otherwise amount to a contempt of court.”

“However, all members have the obligation to use their immunity responsibly, and this house can take measures against representatives who are judged by the house to have misused this right. The cooperation between the parliament and the courts should not be taken for granted, and I urge the member to reflect on these matters thoroughly before continuing.”

Relatives Ultimatum

The disclosure of the man’s name has occurred after Grimmer’s relatives gave an extraordinary ultimatum to the man last week – agree to meet with them by midnight Wednesday or the MP would reveal his identity in the legislature.

They also revealed a file which holds the confession the man made when he was seventeen, according to the legislator.

Case Reopened

Police reopened the case after a 2011 inquest finding determined that Grimmer was dead and advised that authorities re-examine.

Mercury was arrested in spring 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was freed a year after the interview was declared inadmissible.

Without it, the state director of public prosecutions found there was insufficient evidence for the proceedings to proceed.

Admission Details

During the trial, the court heard that during an questioning with officers in the early 1970s, Mercury had confessed to killing Grimmer, telling police he had planned to have “sexual intercourse” with the child before allegedly murdering her.

Legal Ruling

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

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

“Neither a guardian, adult or legal practitioner was present at any stage of the interrogation,” the justice said.

He heard testimony from two psychiatrists who concurred that the youth had a low IQ, was immature and more vulnerable than the average 17-year-old.

Background of the Defendant

The court heard the suspect had a difficult relationship with his family, a history of running away from his residence, moving countries, low intellect and limited education.

The prosecution submitted that at the time of the questioning, there were no compulsory rules or standards for an adult support person to be present when questioning juveniles.

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