🔗 Share this article

A politician from NSW has employed legislative immunity to disclose the identity of a man earlier accused in connection to the alleged kidnapping and killing of British young girl Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

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

Court Case and Pseudonym

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

Mercury made the reported confession, which was the foundation of the crown’s case, when he was 17 years old and still a minor under state law, and under eighteen months after the child vanished.

Parliamentary Revelation

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

Guardian Australia is choosing not to name the individual. The man could not legally be publicly identified during the 2018 because he was aged fifteen at the time of the reported crime.

Parliamentary Intervention

Ahead of the MP disclosing the identity, the speaker of the upper house of New South Wales, the presiding officer, interrupted him. He asked if the member was about to reveal the name, which is currently mandated to be suppressed by court ruling.

The president said: “Can I just make these observations before you continue under immunity, a member is protected from the consequences which would otherwise result from violating a legal order of this kind, which could otherwise amount to a contempt of court.”

“However, all members have the obligation to use their privilege judiciously, and this house can take measures against representatives who are deemed by the house to have misused this right. The cooperation between the parliament and the courts should not be taken for granted, and I urge the member to consider these issues thoroughly before continuing.”

Family Demand

The revelation of the suspect's name has occurred after the toddler's family gave an unprecedented demand to the man last week – consent to meet with them by the deadline or the MP would reveal his name in the legislature.

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

Case Revived

Law enforcement restarted the investigation after a 2011 inquest finding ruled that Grimmer was deceased and advised that police reinvestigate.

The suspect was arrested in spring 2018, and was then in his 60s. He was freed a later after the interview was ruled unacceptable.

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

Admission Particulars

During the trial, the tribunal heard that during an interview with police in the seventies, Mercury had confessed to murdering Grimmer, informing police he had intended to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before reportedly murdering her.

Legal Decision

But Justice Robert Allan Hulme ruled the interrogation could not be used as evidence in the trial.

In his judgment in the high court, the justice said the interview was unacceptable because of the manner in which it was conducted and the specific vulnerability of the accused at the time.

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

He heard testimony from two psychiatrists who concurred that the youth had a below average IQ, was undeveloped and more vulnerable than the average 17-year-old.

History of the Defendant

The court heard the accused had a strained connection with his family, a history of running away from his residence, moving countries, limited intelligence and restricted schooling.

The crown submitted that at the time of the interview, there were no mandatory requirements or guidelines for an adult support person to be present when interviewing juveniles.

The other evidence before the court was composed of contemporaneous records and reports from 1970-71, derived from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.