🔗 Share this article

An politician from NSW has employed legislative immunity to reveal the name of a individual previously charged in connection to the suspected abduction and killing of British young girl Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

The young girl vanished from outside a shower block while with her mother and siblings at the seaside in the coastal district of New South Wales on 12 January 1970.

Court Case and Alias

The man, known under the pseudonym “Mercury,” faced a trial in 2018 after pleading not guilty. However, the proceedings ended when a justice determined that a 1971 interrogation where he confessed to the crime was inadmissible.

Mercury made the reported admission, which was the foundation of the prosecution's case, when he was 17 years old and still a minor under state law, and under eighteen months after Grimmer disappeared.

Parliamentary Disclosure

On Thursday, 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 name the individual. The suspect could not legally be named during the 2018 because he was just 15 at the time of the reported offending.

Parliamentary Intervention

Ahead of Buckingham disclosing the identity, the president of the upper house of New South Wales, the presiding officer, stopped him. He asked if Buckingham was about to divulge the identity, which is presently mandated to be suppressed by court ruling.

The president said: “May I just point out before you proceed under privilege, a legislator is protected from the consequences which would otherwise result from violating a legal order of this kind, which could otherwise amount to a legal offense.”

“Nevertheless, all members have the responsibility to use their immunity responsibly, and this house can take action against representatives who are judged by the house to have misused this right. The comity between the legislature and the judiciary should not be taken for granted, and I ask the representative to reflect on these matters thoroughly before continuing.”

Family Ultimatum

The disclosure of the man’s name has come after the toddler's relatives gave an unprecedented ultimatum to the individual 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 holds the confession the man made when he was 17, according to the legislator.

Case Revived

Police reopened the case after a two thousand eleven inquest finding determined that the child was dead and recommended that authorities re-examine.

The suspect was taken into custody in March 2018, and was then in his 60s. He was freed a later after the interrogation was declared unacceptable.

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

Admission Details

During the trial, the tribunal heard that during an questioning with police in the seventies, Mercury had admitted to killing Grimmer, telling officers he had planned to have “sexual relations” with the child before reportedly murdering her.

Legal Ruling

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

In his ruling in the NSW supreme court, Hulme said the interview was inadmissible because of the way in which it was conducted and the particular susceptibility of the defendant at the time.

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

He received testimony from two psychiatrists who agreed that the teenager had a low intelligence, was immature and more at-risk than the average teenager.

History of the Defendant

The court heard the accused had a strained connection with his parents, a record of running away from his residence, relocating internationally, limited intelligence and restricted schooling.

The crown argued that at the time of the interview, there were no compulsory rules or standards for an adult support person to be there when interviewing juveniles.

The additional information before the court was composed of records from the time and reports from the early seventies, obtained from his interaction with the youth legal system.