🔗 Share this article

A politician from NSW has utilized parliamentary privilege to disclose the identity of a man previously charged in relation to the alleged kidnapping and killing of British toddler Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

Grimmer disappeared from near a shower block while accompanying her mother and siblings at the seaside in the Illawarra region of NSW on 12 January 1970.

Court Case and Pseudonym

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

The accused made the reported admission, which was the cornerstone of the crown’s case, when he was 17 years old and still a minor under state law, and under eighteen months after Grimmer disappeared.

Legislative Revelation

On Thursday, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party revealed the name of Mercury while protected under parliamentary privilege.

The media outlet is choosing not to identify the individual. The man could not lawfully be publicly identified during the trial because he was just fifteen at the time of the reported crime.

Legislative Intervention

Ahead of the MP disclosing the name, the president of the Legislative Council of NSW, the presiding officer, stopped him. He inquired if the member was about to divulge the identity, which is presently required to be suppressed by legal order.

The president said: “Can I just point out before you proceed under immunity, a member is shielded from the repercussions which would otherwise result from violating a legal order of this nature, which could otherwise amount to a contempt of court.”

“Nevertheless, all members have the responsibility to use their privilege judiciously, and this house can take action against members who are judged by the assembly to have abused this right. The cooperation between the parliament and the courts should not be taken for granted, and I urge the member to consider these matters thoroughly before proceeding.”

Relatives Ultimatum

The revelation of the man’s name has occurred after Grimmer’s relatives gave an unprecedented demand to the man last week – agree to speak with them by the deadline or Buckingham would reveal his name in parliament.

They also revealed a file which holds the confession the man made when he was 17, according to the legislator.

Case Revived

Law enforcement reopened the investigation after a 2011 inquest finding determined that Grimmer was dead and recommended that authorities reinvestigate.

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

Without it, the state prosecuting authority found there was inadequate evidence for the case to continue.

Admission Details

During the trial, the tribunal heard that during an questioning with officers in the seventies, Mercury had confessed to killing Grimmer, telling police he had intended to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before allegedly killing her.

Judicial Ruling

But Justice Robert Allan Hulme ruled the interview could not be used as evidence in the case.

In his judgment in the NSW supreme court, Hulme said the questioning was inadmissible because of the manner in which it was carried out and the particular susceptibility of the defendant at the time.

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

He received evidence from two psychiatrists who concurred that the youth had a below average intelligence, was immature and more at-risk than the typical 17-year-old.

Background of the Defendant

The court heard the suspect had a strained connection with his family, a history of running away from his residence, relocating internationally, low intellect and restricted education.

The prosecution submitted that at the time of the questioning, there were no mandatory requirements or standards for an adult support person to be there when questioning minors.

The additional information before the court was composed of contemporaneous records and documents from the early seventies, derived from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.