🔗 Share this article

A legislator from New South Wales has employed legislative immunity to reveal the name of a man previously charged in connection to the suspected kidnapping and murder of British young girl Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

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

Court Case and Pseudonym

The suspect, known under the alias “Mercury,” underwent a court case in 2018 after pleading not guilty. However, the trial collapsed when a justice ruled that a 1971 police interview where he admitted to the murder was not admissible.

The accused made the reported confession, which was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, when he was 17 years old and still a child under state law, and under eighteen months after the child vanished.

Legislative Disclosure

On the day, Jeremy Buckingham disclosed the identity of Mercury while shielded under parliamentary privilege.

The media outlet is opting not to identify the man. The man could not legally be named during the 2018 because he was aged fifteen at the time of the reported offending.

Legislative Intervention

Before the MP disclosing the identity, the president of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, the presiding officer, interrupted him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to reveal the identity, which is currently mandated to be suppressed by court ruling.

Franklin said: “May I just point out before you proceed under immunity, a member is shielded from the repercussions which would otherwise result from breaching a legal order of this kind, which could otherwise amount to a legal offense.”

“However, all members have the responsibility to use their privilege judiciously, and this house can take measures against representatives who are judged by the house to have misused this right. The cooperation between the legislature and the judiciary should not be taken for granted, and I ask the member to consider these matters thoroughly before proceeding.”

Family Ultimatum

The revelation of the suspect's name has come after the toddler's family gave an unprecedented demand to the man last week – consent to speak with them by the deadline or the MP would disclose his identity in the legislature.

They also revealed a dossier which contains the admission the man made when he was seventeen, according to the legislator.

Case Reopened

Police reopened the investigation after a two thousand eleven coroner’s report ruled that the child was deceased and recommended that police re-examine.

The suspect was arrested in spring 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was freed a later after the interview was declared inadmissible.

In its absence, the state prosecuting authority found there was inadequate evidence for the proceedings to proceed.

Confession Details

During the trial, the tribunal heard that during an interview with police in the early 1970s, the accused had confessed to killing the toddler, informing officers he had intended to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before allegedly killing her.

Legal Ruling

But Justice Robert Allan Hulme ruled the interview could not be used as proof in the case.

In his judgment in the high court, the justice said the questioning was inadmissible because of the manner in which it was conducted and the particular susceptibility of the accused at the time.

“Neither a guardian, adult or legal practitioner was in attendance at any point of the police interview,” the judge said.

He heard testimony from mental health experts who agreed that the youth had a low intelligence, was undeveloped and more vulnerable than the average teenager.

History of the Accused

The tribunal heard the suspect had a strained relationship with his family, a record of running away from home, moving countries, low intellect and restricted schooling.

The prosecution argued that at the time of the interview, there were no compulsory rules or standards for an guardian to be there when questioning juveniles.

The additional evidence before the judge was made up of records from the time and reports from 1970-71, obtained from his interaction with the youth legal system.