🔗 Share this article

A legislator from NSW has utilized parliamentary privilege to reveal the name of a man previously charged in connection to the alleged kidnapping and killing of UK-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Vanishing at Coastal Area

The young girl disappeared from outside a shower block while accompanying her parent and siblings at the seaside in the Illawarra region of New South Wales on January 12, 1970.

Legal Proceedings and Pseudonym

The man, referred to under the alias “Mercury,” underwent a trial in 2018 after pleading not guilty. However, the trial collapsed when a justice determined that a nineteen seventy-one police interview where he admitted to the crime was not admissible.

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

Legislative Disclosure

On Thursday, Jeremy Buckingham disclosed the name of Mercury while protected under legislative immunity.

The media outlet is opting not to name the man. The man could not lawfully be publicly identified during the 2018 because he was just fifteen at the time of the reported offending.

Parliamentary Intervention

Before Buckingham revealing the identity, the president of the upper house of New South Wales, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He asked if Buckingham was about to reveal the identity, which is presently mandated to be withheld by court ruling.

Franklin said: “May I just point out before you continue under privilege, a member is protected from the consequences which would normally result from breaching 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 chamber can take action against members who are deemed by the house to have misused this right. The comity between the parliament and the courts should not be treated lightly, and I urge the member to consider these matters thoroughly before proceeding.”

Family Ultimatum

The revelation of the suspect's identity has come after the toddler's family gave an extraordinary ultimatum to the man last week – consent to meet with them by the deadline or the MP would disclose his name in the legislature.

They also revealed a dossier which contains the admission the suspect made when he was seventeen, according to Buckingham.

Investigation Reopened

Police restarted the case after a two thousand eleven coroner’s report determined that Grimmer was dead and recommended that authorities re-examine.

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.

In its absence, the state director of public prosecutions found there was inadequate evidence for the proceedings to continue.

Admission Details

During the court case, the court heard that during an questioning with officers in the seventies, Mercury had admitted to murdering Grimmer, telling officers he had planned to have “sexual intercourse” with the child before allegedly murdering her.

Legal Decision

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

In his judgment in the high court, the justice said the questioning was inadmissible because of the manner in which it was carried out and the specific vulnerability of the accused 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 agreed that the teenager had a below average intelligence, was undeveloped and more vulnerable than the typical 17-year-old.

Background of the Defendant

The court heard the suspect had a strained connection with his parents, a history of running away from home, relocating internationally, limited intelligence and restricted education.

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

The other information before the judge was made up of records from the time and documents from the early seventies, derived from his interaction with the youth legal system.