The family of Cheryl Grimmer has said “what we want now is the truth” after a New South Wales MP used parliamentary privilege to reveal the identity of a man who police previously alleged murdered the UK-born toddler 55 years ago.
Cheryl vanished from outside a shower block while with her mother and three older brothers at Fairy Meadow beach in the Illawarra region of NSW on 12 January 1970.
The man, known by the pseudonym “Mercury”, faced a trial in 2018 after he pleaded not guilty. But it collapsed after a judge ruled that a 1971 police interview in which he confessed to the murder was not admissible.
Mercury made the alleged confession, which was the cornerstone of the crown’s case, when he was 17 and still a child under NSW law, and less than 18 months after Cheryl disappeared.
On Thursday Jeremy Buckingham, a member of NSW Legalise Cannabis party, revealed Mercury’s identity while protected under parliamentary privilege.
“Cheryl Grimmer’s family have relentlessly fought for justice and search for the truth regarding her disappearance,” he said in a notice of motion.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
Guardian Australia is not naming the man for legal reasons. The man could not legally be publicly identified during the 2018 court hearings because he was 15 at the time of the alleged offending.
The revelation of the man’s name has come after the Grimmer family gave an extraordinary ultimatum to the man last week: agree to meet with them by midnight on Wednesday or Buckingham would reveal his identity in parliament.
Buckingham also read out in parliament the confession the man made to police when he was 17.
While reading the man’s words about what he allegedly did to the toddler, Buckingham paused for a moment to choke back tears.
Shortly after, Cheryl’s brother read out a prepared statement from the family to reporters. Another family member finished reading the statement after the brother was brought to tears and could not go on.
“He has been given the opportunity to declare his innocence or guilt, yet he has chosen to remain silent,” one of Cheryl’s family members said.
“Once Mercury’s confession is made public, we believe people will understand why we felt we had no choice but to accept Jeremy Buckingham’s offer of support.”
“We are not seeking to harm Mercury or his family. We what we want is now the truth. We hope that by speaking out today, members of the public who may hold information will come forward so that Mercury can be questioned in a court of law and justice for Cheryl can finally be served.”
The family did not take questions, citing potential legal issues.
Before Buckingham revealed the name, the president of the Legislative Council, Ben Franklin, interrupted him. He asked if Buckingham was about to reveal the name, which a legal order suppresses.
Franklin said: “Can I just make these observations before you proceed under privilege – a member is protected from the consequences which would otherwise result from breaching a legal order of this nature, which could otherwise amount to a contempt of court.
“However, all members have the obligation to use their privilege responsibly, and this house can take action against members who are judged by the house to have abused privilege. The comity between the parliament and the courts should not be treated lightly, and I ask the member to consider these issues carefully before proceeding.”
The NSW attorney general, Michael Daley, said after Buckingham spoke to parliament: “This is a heart-wrenching 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 appropriate to comment on any individual who has not been charged or convicted.
“Parliamentary privilege is an independent process and it’s up to individual MPs about how they choose to exercise it.”
The collapsed trial
Police reopened the case after a 2011 coroner’s report ruled that Cheryl was dead and recommended that police reinvestigate.
Mercury was arrested in March 2018; he was then in his 60s. He was released a year later after the interview was ruled inadmissible.
Without it, the NSW director of public prosecutions found that there was insufficient evidence for the case to proceed.
A court hearing was told that during an interview with police in the early 1970s, Mercury had confessed to killing Cheryl, telling officers he had intended to have “sexual intercourse” with her before allegedly killing her.
But Justice Robert Allan Hulme ruled that the interview could not be used as evidence in the trial.
In his judgment in the NSW supreme court, Hulme said the interview was inadmissible because of the manner in which it was conducted and the particular vulnerability of the accused at the time.
“No parent, adult or legal practitioner was present at any stage of the police interview,” the judge said.
He heard evidence from two psychiatrists who agreed that the teenager had a below-average intelligence, was immature and more vulnerable than the average 17-year-old.
The court heard that the accused had a difficult relationship with his parents, a history of running away from home, moving countries, low intellect and limited education.
The crown submitted that, at the time of the interview, there were no mandatory requirements or guidelines for an adult support person to be present when questioning minors.
The other evidence before the judge was made up of contemporaneous records and reports from 1970-71, derived from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.
