🔗 Share this article

An legislator from NSW has employed parliamentary privilege to disclose the identity of a individual previously accused in relation to the alleged kidnapping and murder of UK-born young girl Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

The young girl vanished from outside a shower block while with her mother and siblings at Fairy Meadow beach in the Illawarra region of New South Wales on January 12, 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Alias

The man, known under the alias “Mercury,” underwent a trial in 2018 after entering not guilty. Yet, the trial ended when a justice determined that a nineteen seventy-one police interview where he admitted to the murder was inadmissible.

The accused 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 eighteen months after Grimmer vanished.

Legislative Revelation

On the day, Jeremy Buckingham disclosed the name of Mercury while shielded under legislative immunity.

Guardian Australia is choosing not to name the individual. The man could not lawfully be named during the trial because he was just fifteen at the time of the alleged offending.

Legislative Interruption

Ahead of the MP disclosing the name, the president of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to reveal the name, which is currently required to be suppressed by court ruling.

Franklin said: “May I just make these observations before you proceed under immunity, a legislator is protected from the repercussions which would otherwise result from breaching a court order of this kind, which could otherwise amount to a legal offense.”

“Nevertheless, all members have the responsibility to use their privilege judiciously, and this house can take action against representatives who are deemed by the house to have misused privilege. The comity between the parliament and the courts should not be taken for granted, and I ask the member to reflect on these issues thoroughly before continuing.”

Relatives Demand

The revelation of the man’s identity has come after Grimmer’s relatives gave an unprecedented ultimatum to the individual last week – agree to meet with them by midnight Wednesday or the MP would disclose his name in the legislature.

They also presented a file which holds the admission the man made when he was seventeen, as stated by the legislator.

Case Reopened

Law enforcement reopened the investigation after a 2011 coroner’s report ruled that the child was dead and recommended that police re-examine.

The suspect was taken into custody in spring 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was released a year after the interview was ruled unacceptable.

Without it, the state director of public prosecutions found there was inadequate proof for the case to proceed.

Confession Particulars

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

Legal Ruling

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

In his judgment in the NSW supreme court, the justice said the interview was inadmissible because of the manner in which it was carried out and the specific vulnerability of the accused at the time.

“Neither a guardian, adult or lawyer was in attendance at any point of the interrogation,” the judge said.

He heard evidence from two psychiatrists who concurred that the youth had a below average IQ, was undeveloped and more vulnerable than the average teenager.

History of the Defendant

The tribunal heard the accused had a difficult relationship with his family, a record of fleeing from his residence, moving countries, low intellect and restricted education.

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

The additional evidence before the judge was made up of contemporaneous records and documents from 1970-71, derived from his involvement with the juvenile justice system.