🔗 Share this article

A legislator from NSW has utilized legislative immunity to disclose the name of a individual earlier accused in connection to the alleged abduction and killing of British toddler Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Disappearance at Coastal Area

The young girl disappeared from outside a bathhouse while accompanying her parent and three older brothers at the seaside in the coastal district of NSW on 12 January 1970.

Court Case and Pseudonym

The man, referred to under the alias “Mercury,” underwent a court case in two thousand eighteen after pleading not guilty. Yet, the trial ended when a judge determined that a nineteen seventy-one police interview where he confessed to the crime was not admissible.

Mercury made the reported confession, which was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, when he was seventeen years old and still a child under state law, and under 18 months after Grimmer disappeared.

Parliamentary Disclosure

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

The media outlet is choosing not to identify the man. The suspect could not legally be named during the 2018 because he was aged 15 at the time of the alleged offending.

Legislative Intervention

Ahead of Buckingham disclosing the name, the president of the upper house of NSW, the presiding officer, interrupted him. He inquired if Buckingham was about to divulge the identity, which is currently mandated to be suppressed by court ruling.

Franklin said: “Can I just point out before you continue under privilege, a legislator is shielded from the repercussions which would normally result from violating a legal order of this kind, which could otherwise amount to a legal offense.”

“However, all legislators have the obligation to use their immunity responsibly, and this chamber can take measures against members who are deemed by the assembly to have abused this right. The comity between the legislature and the courts should not be taken for granted, and I urge the representative to consider these issues thoroughly before proceeding.”

Family Demand

The disclosure of the suspect's name has occurred after Grimmer’s family gave an unprecedented demand to the man last week – consent to speak with them by the deadline or the MP would disclose his identity in parliament.

They also presented a file which contains the admission the man made when he was seventeen, according to Buckingham.

Investigation Revived

Law enforcement restarted the case after a 2011 coroner’s report ruled that Grimmer was deceased and advised that authorities re-examine.

Mercury was taken into custody in spring 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was released a year after the interrogation was declared unacceptable.

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

Confession Particulars

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

Judicial Decision

But Justice Robert Allan Hulme ruled the interview could not be used as evidence in the trial.

In his ruling in the NSW supreme court, the justice said the questioning was inadmissible because of the way in which it was carried out and the particular vulnerability of the defendant at the time.

“Neither a guardian, grown-up or lawyer was in attendance at any point of the police interview,” the justice said.

He heard evidence from two psychiatrists who concurred that the youth had a low intelligence, was undeveloped and more at-risk than the average teenager.

Background of the Defendant

The tribunal heard the suspect had a difficult relationship with his family, a record of running away from home, moving countries, low intellect and restricted education.

The prosecution 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 evidence before the court was composed of records from the time and reports from 1970-71, derived from his interaction with the youth legal system.