🔗 Share this article

A legislator from New South Wales has utilized legislative immunity to disclose the identity of a man earlier accused in relation to the suspected kidnapping and murder of UK-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

The young girl vanished from outside a shower block while with her parent and siblings at the seaside in the Illawarra region of NSW on 12 January 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Alias

The man, referred to under the alias “Mercury,” faced a trial in two thousand eighteen after entering not guilty. Yet, the proceedings ended when a justice determined that a 1971 interrogation where he admitted to the crime was inadmissible.

The accused made the reported confession, which was the cornerstone of the crown’s case, when he was seventeen years old and still a child under NSW law, and under 18 months after the child vanished.

Legislative Revelation

On the day, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party disclosed the name of the suspect while protected under parliamentary privilege.

The media outlet is choosing not to identify the man. The suspect could not legally be named during the trial because he was just 15 at the time of the reported offending.

Legislative Interruption

Before the MP disclosing the name, the president of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, stopped him. He inquired if the member was about to divulge the identity, which is currently required to be withheld by legal order.

Franklin said: “May I just make these observations before you continue under immunity, a legislator is protected from the repercussions which would normally result from violating a court order of this nature, which could otherwise amount to a contempt of court.”

“Nevertheless, all legislators have the obligation to use their privilege responsibly, and this chamber can take measures against representatives who are deemed by the assembly to have misused privilege. The cooperation between the legislature and the courts should not be treated lightly, and I urge the member to reflect on these issues thoroughly before proceeding.”

Relatives Ultimatum

The revelation of the man’s identity has occurred after the toddler's family gave an unprecedented ultimatum to the individual last week – consent to speak with them by midnight Wednesday or the MP would disclose his identity in parliament.

They also presented a dossier which holds the admission the man made when he was 17, according to the legislator.

Investigation Reopened

Police restarted the case after a two thousand eleven inquest finding determined that Grimmer was deceased 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 later after the interrogation was ruled unacceptable.

In its absence, the NSW prosecuting authority found there was insufficient evidence for the proceedings to proceed.

Confession Particulars

During the trial, the court heard that during an questioning with police in the early 1970s, Mercury had confessed to killing the toddler, telling officers he had planned to have “sexual intercourse” with the child before allegedly murdering her.

Judicial Ruling

But Justice Robert Allan Hulme decided the interrogation could not be used as evidence in the case.

In his ruling in the high court, Hulme said the questioning was inadmissible because of the way in which it was carried out and the specific susceptibility of the defendant at the time.

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

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

History of the Accused

The court heard the suspect had a difficult connection with his family, a record of running away from home, relocating internationally, low intellect and limited schooling.

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

The other information before the judge was made up of records from the time and documents from 1970-71, derived from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.