🔗 Share this article

A politician from NSW has utilized legislative immunity to disclose the name of a man earlier charged in connection to the suspected kidnapping and killing of UK-born young girl Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

The young girl vanished from near a shower block while with her parent and siblings at Fairy Meadow beach in the Illawarra region of NSW on January 12, 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Alias

The suspect, referred to under the pseudonym “Mercury,” faced a trial in two thousand eighteen after pleading not guilty. However, the proceedings ended when a judge determined that a 1971 police interview where he confessed to the murder was inadmissible.

The accused made the alleged admission, which was the foundation of the crown’s case, when he was 17 years old and still a child under state law, and under 18 months after Grimmer disappeared.

Parliamentary Revelation

On the day, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party disclosed the name of the suspect while shielded under legislative immunity.

The media outlet is opting not to identify the man. The suspect could not legally be named during the trial because he was just 15 at the time of the alleged offending.

Legislative Intervention

Ahead of the MP revealing the identity, the speaker of the upper house of NSW, the presiding officer, stopped him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to divulge the name, which is presently required to be withheld by legal order.

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

“Nevertheless, all legislators have the responsibility to use their immunity judiciously, and this chamber can take measures against members who are deemed by the assembly to have abused privilege. The cooperation between the legislature and the judiciary should not be treated lightly, and I urge the representative to reflect on these matters carefully before proceeding.”

Relatives Ultimatum

The disclosure of the man’s identity has occurred after the toddler's family gave an extraordinary demand to the individual last week – consent to speak with them by midnight Wednesday or the MP would disclose his identity in the legislature.

They also presented a dossier which holds the admission the man made when he was 17, as stated by the legislator.

Investigation Reopened

Law enforcement reopened the case after a 2011 inquest finding ruled that Grimmer was deceased and recommended that police re-examine.

Mercury was arrested 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 insufficient proof for the case to proceed.

Confession Particulars

During the trial, the court heard that during an questioning with officers in the seventies, the accused had confessed to killing the toddler, informing police he had planned to have “sexual relations” with the child before allegedly murdering her.

Judicial Decision

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

In his judgment in the NSW supreme court, Hulme said the questioning was inadmissible because of the way in which it was carried out and the particular vulnerability of the accused at the time.

“Neither a guardian, grown-up or legal practitioner was present at any point of the police interview,” the judge said.

He received evidence from two psychiatrists who concurred that the teenager had a below average IQ, was immature and more at-risk than the typical teenager.

Background of the Accused

The court heard the accused had a strained relationship with his family, a history of fleeing from his residence, relocating internationally, low intellect and restricted education.

The prosecution submitted that at the time of the interview, there were no compulsory rules or standards for an guardian to be present when interviewing minors.

The additional information before the court was made up of records from the time and reports from the early seventies, derived from his involvement with the youth legal system.