🔗 Share this article

An politician from NSW has utilized parliamentary privilege to reveal the identity of a individual previously charged in connection to the alleged kidnapping and murder of British young girl Cheryl Grimmer fifty-five years ago.

Disappearance at Fairy Meadow Beach

Grimmer vanished from near a shower block while accompanying her parent and three older brothers at Fairy Meadow beach in the coastal district of NSW on 12 January 1970.

Court Case and Alias

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

The accused made the reported admission, which was the cornerstone of the crown’s case, when he was 17 years old and still a child under state law, and less than eighteen months after Grimmer vanished.

Legislative Disclosure

On Thursday, a member of the NSW Legalise Cannabis party revealed the identity of Mercury while protected under parliamentary privilege.

Guardian Australia is choosing not to identify the individual. The man could not lawfully be named during the trial because he was just fifteen at the time of the reported crime.

Legislative Intervention

Ahead of Buckingham revealing the identity, the speaker of the upper house of NSW, the presiding officer, stopped him. He inquired if the member was about to divulge the identity, which is currently required to be suppressed by court ruling.

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

“Nevertheless, all legislators have the obligation to use their immunity judiciously, and this house can take measures against representatives who are deemed by the house to have abused this right. The comity between the parliament and the judiciary should not be treated lightly, and I ask the representative to consider these matters carefully before proceeding.”

Relatives Ultimatum

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

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

Investigation Revived

Police restarted the investigation after a two thousand eleven inquest finding determined that Grimmer was deceased and advised that authorities reinvestigate.

The suspect was taken into custody in March 2018, and was then in his 60s. He was freed a later after the interrogation was declared unacceptable.

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

Confession Particulars

During the trial, the tribunal heard that during an interview with police in the early 1970s, Mercury had admitted to murdering Grimmer, informing officers he had intended to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before reportedly murdering her.

Judicial 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, Hulme said the questioning was unacceptable because of the manner in which it was carried out and the specific susceptibility of the accused at the time.

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

He heard testimony from two psychiatrists who agreed that the teenager had a low intelligence, was immature and more vulnerable than the average teenager.

Background of the Defendant

The court heard the suspect had a difficult relationship with his parents, a history of running away from his residence, moving countries, low intellect and restricted schooling.

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

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