🔗 Share this article

An legislator from New South Wales has employed legislative immunity to reveal the name of a individual previously accused in relation to the alleged kidnapping and murder of British young girl Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

Grimmer vanished from outside a bathhouse while accompanying her parent and siblings at the seaside in the Illawarra region of NSW on January 12, 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Pseudonym

The man, known under the pseudonym “Mercury,” underwent a court case in 2018 after entering not guilty. However, the trial ended when a justice ruled that a nineteen seventy-one police interview where he confessed to the crime was inadmissible.

Mercury made the reported admission, which was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, when he was 17 years old and still a child under NSW law, and less than 18 months after Grimmer disappeared.

Parliamentary Disclosure

On the day, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party disclosed the identity of the suspect while shielded under legislative immunity.

The media outlet is choosing not to name the man. The suspect could not lawfully be named during the 2018 because he was aged fifteen at the time of the alleged offending.

Legislative Intervention

Before the MP disclosing the name, the president of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He asked if the member was about to reveal the name, which is presently mandated to be suppressed by legal order.

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

“Nevertheless, all members have the responsibility to use their immunity responsibly, and this chamber can take action against representatives who are judged by the assembly to have abused this right. The comity between the parliament and the courts should not be treated lightly, and I ask the representative to reflect on these matters thoroughly before proceeding.”

Relatives Demand

The disclosure of the suspect's identity has occurred after Grimmer’s family gave an extraordinary ultimatum to the man last week – consent to meet with them by the deadline or Buckingham would reveal his identity in parliament.

They also presented a dossier which holds the confession the suspect made when he was seventeen, as stated by the legislator.

Investigation Revived

Police restarted the case after a two thousand eleven inquest finding ruled that Grimmer was deceased and advised that police reinvestigate.

Mercury was arrested in spring 2018, and was then in his 60s. He was freed a year after the interrogation was declared inadmissible.

In its absence, the NSW director of public prosecutions found there was inadequate proof for the case to continue.

Confession Particulars

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

Legal Decision

But the judge decided the interview could not be used as evidence in the trial.

In his ruling in the high court, the justice said the questioning was unacceptable because of the manner in which it was conducted and the particular susceptibility of the accused at the time.

“Neither a guardian, grown-up or lawyer was present at any stage of the interrogation,” the justice said.

He received testimony from two psychiatrists who agreed that the teenager had a low intelligence, was undeveloped and more at-risk than the typical 17-year-old.

Background of the Accused

The tribunal heard the accused had a difficult connection with his parents, a history of fleeing from home, moving countries, limited intelligence and restricted education.

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

The other information before the judge was made up of contemporaneous records and reports from the early seventies, obtained from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.