🔗 Share this article

An politician from New South Wales has employed legislative immunity to reveal the name of a man earlier accused in connection to the suspected kidnapping and killing of UK-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Disappearance at Fairy Meadow Beach

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

Legal Proceedings and Alias

The man, known under the pseudonym “Mercury,” faced a trial in 2018 after entering not guilty. Yet, the trial collapsed when a judge ruled that a 1971 interrogation where he admitted to the crime was inadmissible.

Mercury made the reported 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.

Legislative Disclosure

On Thursday, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party disclosed the name of Mercury while protected under legislative immunity.

Guardian Australia is choosing not to name the man. The suspect could not legally be publicly identified during the trial because he was aged 15 at the time of the reported offending.

Legislative Intervention

Ahead of Buckingham revealing the identity, the speaker of the upper house of NSW, the presiding officer, stopped him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to reveal the identity, which is currently mandated to be suppressed by legal order.

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

“Nevertheless, all members have the obligation to use their immunity judiciously, and this chamber can take action against representatives who are deemed by the house to have abused privilege. The cooperation between the legislature and the judiciary should not be treated lightly, and I urge the member to reflect on these issues thoroughly before continuing.”

Family Ultimatum

The revelation of the suspect's identity has come after the toddler's family gave an unprecedented demand to the individual last week – consent to speak with them by midnight Wednesday or the MP would reveal his name in parliament.

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

Investigation Revived

Law enforcement restarted the investigation after a two thousand eleven coroner’s report determined that the child was dead and recommended that authorities reinvestigate.

Mercury was taken into custody in spring 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was freed a year after the interrogation was ruled unacceptable.

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

Admission Particulars

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

Legal Decision

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

In his ruling in the high court, Hulme said the interview was inadmissible because of the manner in which it was conducted and the particular vulnerability of the defendant at the time.

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

He heard testimony from two psychiatrists who agreed that the teenager had a low intelligence, was immature and more at-risk than the typical 17-year-old.

History of the Accused

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

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

The other information before the court was composed of records from the time and reports from 1970-71, obtained from his interaction with the youth legal system.