🔗 Share this article

A legislator from New South Wales has utilized legislative immunity to disclose the identity of a man previously charged in connection to the suspected abduction and killing of UK-born young girl Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Disappearance at Fairy Meadow Beach

Grimmer vanished from outside a shower block while accompanying her parent and siblings at the seaside in the coastal district of New South Wales on 12 January 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Pseudonym

The suspect, referred to under the alias “Mercury,” underwent a trial in two thousand eighteen after entering not guilty. Yet, the proceedings collapsed when a justice determined that a nineteen seventy-one police interview where he admitted to the crime was inadmissible.

Mercury made the reported admission, which was the cornerstone of the crown’s case, when he was seventeen years old and still a child under NSW law, and less than 18 months after Grimmer disappeared.

Parliamentary Revelation

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

The media outlet is choosing not to identify the man. The suspect could not legally be named during the trial because he was aged fifteen at the time of the reported crime.

Legislative Intervention

Ahead of the MP revealing the identity, the president of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, stopped him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to reveal the identity, which is presently required to be withheld by court ruling.

Franklin said: “Can I just point out before you continue under privilege, a legislator is protected from the repercussions which would otherwise result from violating a legal order of this nature, which could otherwise amount to a legal offense.”

“However, all legislators have the obligation to use their privilege judiciously, and this chamber can take measures against members who are judged by the house to have abused this right. The comity between the parliament and the courts should not be taken for granted, and I ask the representative to consider these matters thoroughly before continuing.”

Family Ultimatum

The disclosure of the suspect's name has occurred after Grimmer’s relatives gave an unprecedented ultimatum to the man last week – agree to meet with them by the deadline or the MP would reveal his identity in parliament.

They also revealed a file which holds the confession the suspect made when he was seventeen, as stated by Buckingham.

Investigation Revived

Law enforcement reopened the investigation after a two thousand eleven coroner’s report determined that the child was deceased and recommended that police re-examine.

Mercury was arrested in March 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was released a year after the interview was declared inadmissible.

Without it, the state prosecuting authority found there was insufficient proof for the case to continue.

Admission Details

During the trial, the court heard that during an interview with officers in the seventies, Mercury had admitted to killing Grimmer, informing police he had intended to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before allegedly killing her.

Judicial Ruling

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

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

“Neither a guardian, grown-up or legal practitioner was in attendance at any stage of the interrogation,” the justice said.

He received evidence from two psychiatrists who concurred that the youth had a below average intelligence, was undeveloped and more at-risk than the average teenager.

Background of the Accused

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

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

The additional information before the judge was composed of records from the time and reports from the early seventies, obtained from his involvement with the juvenile justice system.