🔗 Share this article

A legislator from NSW has utilized legislative immunity to reveal the name of a individual previously accused in connection to the alleged kidnapping and murder of British young girl Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Disappearance at Coastal Area

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

Court Case and Alias

The suspect, known under the pseudonym “Mercury,” underwent a trial in 2018 after entering not guilty. However, the trial collapsed when a judge ruled that a 1971 interrogation where he admitted to the crime was not admissible.

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

Parliamentary Revelation

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

Guardian Australia is choosing not to identify the man. The suspect could not lawfully be named during the 2018 because he was aged fifteen at the time of the reported crime.

Parliamentary Interruption

Ahead of the MP revealing the name, the president of the upper house of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to divulge the identity, which is currently required to be suppressed by legal order.

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

“Nevertheless, all members have the obligation to use their privilege judiciously, and this house can take action against representatives who are deemed by the assembly to have abused privilege. The comity between the legislature and the courts should not be treated lightly, and I ask the member to reflect on these matters carefully before proceeding.”

Relatives Demand

The revelation of the suspect's identity has come after Grimmer’s family gave an extraordinary 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 contains the admission the man made when he was seventeen, according to Buckingham.

Investigation Reopened

Law enforcement reopened the investigation after a 2011 inquest finding determined that Grimmer was deceased and recommended that authorities reinvestigate.

Mercury was taken into custody in spring 2018, and was then in his 60s. He was released a later after the interrogation was declared inadmissible.

Without it, the NSW director of public prosecutions found there was insufficient evidence for the case to proceed.

Confession Details

During the court case, the court heard that during an questioning with officers in the seventies, the accused had confessed to killing Grimmer, telling police he had intended to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before allegedly murdering her.

Judicial Ruling

But the judge ruled the interrogation could not be used as evidence in the trial.

In his judgment in the NSW supreme court, the justice said the interview was inadmissible because of the manner in which it was carried out and the particular vulnerability of the accused at the time.

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

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

History of the Defendant

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

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

The other information before the court was composed of records from the time and documents from the early seventies, obtained from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.