Name of suspect in Cheryl Grimmer cold case revealed in parliament by NSW MP | New South Wales

A New South Wales MP has used parliamentary privilege to reveal the identity of a man previously charged by police for the alleged kidnap and murder of British-born toddler Cheryl Grimmer 55 years ago.

Grimmer disappeared from outside a shower block on 12 January 1970 while she was with her mother and three older brothers at Fairy Meadow beach in the Illawarra region of New South Wales.

The man, known by the nickname “Mercury”, faced trial after pleading not guilty in 2018. However, this organization collapsed after the judge ruled that the police interrogation in which he confessed to the murder in 1971 was unacceptable.

Mercury made the alleged confession, which became the cornerstone of the Crown case, when he was 17 and still a juvenile under NSW law, and less than 18 months after Grimmer’s disappearance.

On Thursday, Jeremy Buckingham, a member of the NSW Cannabis Legalization party, revealed Mercury’s identity while protected under parliamentary privilege.

“Cheryl Grimmer’s family has fought relentlessly for justice and sought the truth about her disappearance,” he said in a motion.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

Guardian Australia prefers not to name the man. The man’s identity could not legally be made public during the 2018 trial because he was 15 years old at the time of the alleged crime.

The man’s name came after Grimmer’s family gave him an extraordinary ultimatum last week: Agree to meet them by midnight Wednesday or Buckingham would reveal his identity in parliament.

Buckingham also read to parliament the man’s confession to police when he was 17.

Buckingham paused for a moment and choked back tears as he read the man’s words about what he allegedly did to Grimmer.

Before Buckingham could announce his name, he was interrupted by Ben Franklin, president of the NSW Legislative Council. He asked whether Buckingham would reveal the name, which must currently be hidden by regulation.

Franklin said: “May I make these observations before proceeding with discretion, a member is protected from the consequences which would otherwise result from breaching a statutory order of this nature, which might otherwise amount to contempt of court.”

“However, all members have an obligation to use their privilege responsibly and this house may take action against members prosecuted by the house for abusing their privilege. The civility between parliament and the courts should not be taken for granted and I would ask the member to consider these matters carefully before proceeding.”

In a statement after Buckingham spoke to parliament, NSW attorney general Michael Daley said: “This is a heartbreaking case and my thoughts are with Cheryl Grimmer’s family who have endured more than five decades of pain and uncertainty.

“It would not be right to comment on a person who has not been accused or convicted,” he said.

“Parliamentary privilege is an independent process and it is up to individual MPs how they choose to use it.”

Collapsed trial

Police reopened the case after a 2011 coroner’s report ruled Grimmer dead and recommended police re-investigate.

Mercury was arrested in March 2018 and was in his 60s at the time. He was released a year later after the meeting was deemed unacceptable.

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

A court hearing was told Mercury admitted killing Grimmer during an interview with police in the early 1970s, allegedly telling officers he intended to have “sexual intercourse” with the girl before killing her.

However, Judge Robert Allan Hulme ruled that the interview could not be used as evidence at trial.

In his ruling in the NSW supreme court, Hulme said the interview was unacceptable because of the way it was conducted and the sensitivity of the defendant at the time.

“No parent, adult or legal professional was present at any stage of the police interview,” the judge said.

He heard evidence from two psychiatrists who agreed that the teenager had below-average intelligence, was immature and more vulnerable than the average 17-year-old.

The court heard the defendant had a difficult relationship with his parents, had a history of running away from home, moved to other countries, had low intelligence and limited education.

The Crown noted that there was no mandatory requirement or guidance for an adult support worker to be present when questioning minors during interviews.

Other evidence before the judge consisted of contemporaneous recordings and reports from 1970-71 from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.