🔗 Share this article

An legislator from NSW has utilized legislative immunity to reveal the name of a individual earlier charged in relation to the alleged abduction and killing of UK-born young girl Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Disappearance at Fairy Meadow Beach

The young girl vanished from near a bathhouse while with her mother and siblings at Fairy Meadow beach in the coastal district of NSW on January 12, 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Alias

The suspect, referred to under the alias “Mercury,” underwent a court case in two thousand eighteen after entering not guilty. Yet, the trial collapsed when a judge ruled that a nineteen seventy-one police interview where he admitted to the murder was inadmissible.

Mercury made the alleged admission, which was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, when he was 17 years old and still a minor under NSW law, and less than 18 months after Grimmer vanished.

Legislative Disclosure

On Thursday, Jeremy Buckingham disclosed the name of Mercury while protected under parliamentary privilege.

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

Legislative Interruption

Before Buckingham disclosing the identity, the president of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, stopped him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to divulge the identity, which is presently mandated to be withheld 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 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 action against representatives who are judged by the assembly to have misused privilege. The comity between the legislature and the courts should not be treated lightly, and I urge the representative to reflect on these issues carefully before proceeding.”

Relatives Demand

The disclosure of the suspect's name has come after the toddler's family gave an unprecedented ultimatum to the man last week – agree to meet with them by the deadline or the MP would disclose his identity in parliament.

They also presented a file which holds the confession the man made when he was 17, as stated by Buckingham.

Investigation Reopened

Police restarted the case after a 2011 inquest finding ruled that Grimmer was dead and advised that authorities reinvestigate.

The suspect was taken into custody in March 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was freed a year after the interrogation was declared inadmissible.

In its absence, the NSW director of public prosecutions found there was insufficient evidence for the proceedings to proceed.

Confession Particulars

During the court case, the court heard that during an interview with police in the early 1970s, the accused had admitted to killing Grimmer, informing police he had planned to have “sexual relations” with the child before allegedly killing her.

Judicial Ruling

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

In his ruling in the high court, the justice said the interview was unacceptable because of the way in which it was conducted and the particular vulnerability of the accused at the time.

“Neither a guardian, adult or lawyer was present at any point of the police interview,” the justice said.

He heard evidence from mental health experts who concurred that the teenager had a below average intelligence, was immature and more vulnerable than the average 17-year-old.

Background of the Accused

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

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

The additional evidence before the judge was composed of records from the time and documents from 1970-71, obtained from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.