🔗 Share this article

A legislator from NSW has utilized legislative immunity to disclose the name of a individual earlier accused in connection to the suspected kidnapping and murder of UK-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Disappearance at Fairy Meadow Beach

Grimmer vanished from near a bathhouse while accompanying her parent and three older brothers at Fairy Meadow beach in the coastal district of NSW on 12 January 1970.

Court Case and Alias

The man, referred to under the pseudonym “Mercury,” underwent a court case in 2018 after entering not guilty. Yet, the proceedings collapsed when a judge ruled that a 1971 interrogation where he admitted to the crime was not admissible.

Mercury made the alleged confession, which was the cornerstone of the crown’s case, when he was seventeen years old and still a minor under state law, and less than eighteen months after Grimmer disappeared.

Parliamentary Revelation

On Thursday, Jeremy Buckingham disclosed the identity of the suspect while shielded under legislative immunity.

The media outlet is opting not to name the man. The suspect could not lawfully be named during the 2018 because he was just fifteen at the time of the alleged crime.

Legislative Interruption

Before the MP revealing the identity, the speaker of the Legislative Council of NSW, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He asked if the member was about to divulge the name, which is currently required to be suppressed by legal order.

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

“Nevertheless, all legislators have the responsibility to use their privilege responsibly, and this house can take action against members who are deemed by the assembly to have misused privilege. The cooperation between the parliament and the judiciary should not be taken for granted, and I ask the member to reflect on these matters thoroughly before proceeding.”

Relatives Demand

The revelation of the suspect's identity has occurred after Grimmer’s family gave an extraordinary ultimatum to the man last week – agree to meet 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 Buckingham.

Investigation Revived

Law enforcement restarted the investigation after a 2011 coroner’s report ruled that Grimmer was dead and advised that authorities re-examine.

The suspect was taken into custody in March 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was freed a later after the interview was ruled inadmissible.

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

Confession Particulars

During the court case, the tribunal heard that during an interview with officers in the early 1970s, the accused had confessed to killing the toddler, informing officers he had planned to have “sexual relations” with the child before reportedly 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, Hulme said the questioning was inadmissible because of the way in which it was carried out and the particular susceptibility of the accused at the time.

“No parent, grown-up or legal practitioner was present at any stage of the interrogation,” the justice said.

He received testimony from mental health experts who agreed that the youth had a below average IQ, was immature and more vulnerable than the average 17-year-old.

Background of the Defendant

The court heard the accused had a strained relationship with his family, a history of running away from home, relocating internationally, low intellect and restricted schooling.

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

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