Name of Accused in Cold Case of UK Young Child Revealed in Parliament

An politician from NSW has employed parliamentary privilege to disclose the name of a man previously charged in connection to the suspected kidnapping and killing of UK-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Vanishing at Fairy Meadow Beach

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

Court Case and Pseudonym

The man, referred to under the pseudonym “Mercury,” underwent a trial in 2018 after pleading not guilty. However, the proceedings collapsed when a justice determined that a 1971 police interview where he admitted to the murder was not admissible.

Mercury made the alleged admission, which was the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, when he was 17 years old and still a minor under NSW law, and less than 18 months after Grimmer vanished.

Parliamentary Disclosure

On Thursday, Jeremy Buckingham revealed the name of the suspect while protected under parliamentary privilege.

Guardian Australia is opting not to identify the man. The man could not lawfully be named during the trial because he was just 15 at the time of the reported offending.

Legislative Intervention

Ahead of the MP revealing the identity, the president of the Legislative Council of NSW, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He asked if Buckingham was about to divulge the identity, which is presently mandated to be withheld by legal order.

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

“However, all legislators have the obligation to use their privilege responsibly, and this chamber can take measures against members who are judged by the house to have abused privilege. The comity between the legislature and the judiciary should not be taken for granted, and I urge the representative to consider these matters thoroughly before continuing.”

Relatives Demand

The revelation of the man’s identity has occurred after Grimmer’s family gave an extraordinary ultimatum to the individual last week – agree to speak with them by midnight Wednesday or the MP would reveal his identity in parliament.

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

Investigation Revived

Police restarted the investigation after a two thousand eleven inquest finding ruled that the child was dead and advised that authorities reinvestigate.

The suspect was taken into custody in spring 2018, and was then in his sixties. He was released a year after the interview was ruled inadmissible.

Without it, the NSW prosecuting authority found there was insufficient proof for the case to continue.

Admission Particulars

During the court case, the tribunal heard that during an interview with officers in the early 1970s, Mercury had confessed to killing Grimmer, informing police he had planned to have “sexual intercourse” with the child before allegedly killing her.

Legal Ruling

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

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

“No parent, adult or legal practitioner was present at any point of the interrogation,” the justice said.

He received evidence from mental health experts who concurred that the teenager had a below average IQ, was immature and more vulnerable than the typical 17-year-old.

Background of the Defendant

The tribunal heard the suspect had a difficult relationship with his family, a record of running away from his residence, moving countries, limited intelligence and restricted schooling.

The crown submitted that at the time of the interview, there were no compulsory rules or standards for an guardian to be there when interviewing juveniles.

The other evidence before the court was composed of records from the time and reports from the early seventies, obtained from his involvement with the juvenile justice system.