🔗 Share this article

A legislator from New South Wales has utilized legislative immunity to reveal the identity of a individual previously accused in connection to the suspected kidnapping and killing of British young girl Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Disappearance at Coastal Area

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

Court Case and Pseudonym

The suspect, referred to under the alias “Mercury,” underwent a trial in 2018 after pleading not guilty. Yet, the proceedings collapsed when a justice determined that a 1971 police interview where he admitted to the crime was inadmissible.

The accused made the reported admission, which was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, when he was seventeen years old and still a child under NSW law, and under eighteen months after the child disappeared.

Parliamentary Revelation

On the day, Jeremy Buckingham disclosed the name of Mercury while shielded under parliamentary privilege.

The media outlet is opting not to name the man. The suspect could not lawfully be named during the trial because he was just 15 at the time of the alleged offending.

Legislative Intervention

Before Buckingham disclosing the name, the president of the Legislative Council of NSW, the presiding officer, interrupted him. He inquired if the member was about to divulge the identity, which is currently required to be withheld by court ruling.

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

“Nevertheless, all members have the obligation to use their immunity judiciously, and this house can take action against members who are judged by the assembly to have abused this right. The comity between the legislature and the judiciary should not be treated lightly, and I urge the member to consider these issues thoroughly before continuing.”

Family Ultimatum

The revelation of the suspect's identity has occurred after the toddler's relatives gave an extraordinary demand to the man last week – consent to speak with them by midnight Wednesday or the MP would disclose his name in the legislature.

They also revealed a file which contains the admission the man made when he was 17, as stated by Buckingham.

Investigation Reopened

Law enforcement restarted the case after a 2011 inquest finding determined that Grimmer was dead 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 inadmissible.

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

Confession Particulars

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

Judicial Ruling

But Justice Robert Allan Hulme ruled the interrogation could not be used as proof in the case.

In his judgment in the NSW supreme court, the justice said the questioning was inadmissible because of the way in which it was conducted and the specific susceptibility of the defendant at the time.

“No parent, adult or lawyer was present at any stage of the interrogation,” the justice said.

He heard evidence from mental health experts who agreed that the youth had a low IQ, was immature and more vulnerable than the typical 17-year-old.

Background of the Defendant

The court heard the accused had a difficult relationship with his family, a record of fleeing from his residence, relocating internationally, limited intelligence and restricted schooling.

The prosecution argued that at the time of the questioning, there were no compulsory rules or guidelines for an adult support person to be there when questioning minors.

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