Cheryl Grimmer’s family plead for justice

The NSW Attorney-General is awaiting further ­advice on the 1970 abduction and murder of three-year-old Cheryl Grimmer.

Cheryl Grimmer in 1970.

NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman is awaiting further ­advice on the alleged 1970 abduction and murder of three-year-old Cheryl Grimmer, as her family pushes for him to revive a prosecution.

Cheryl’s older brother, Ricki Nash, yesterday provided Mr Speakman with a document outlining final arguments from the family, which is furious that a confession to her murder was found to be inadmissable despite being legally taken and freely given at the time.

A man, who cannot be named because he was 15 when he allegedly snatched Cheryl from Fairy Meadow beach at Wollongong, was to face trial in the NSW Supreme Court this month for her murder, but the charge was dropped after a judge ruled in February that a 1971 police interview in which he confessed should be ­excluded.

NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Lloyd Babb SC declined to appeal against the ­decision.

Mr Speakman ordered a ­review of the case by Crown ­Advocate David Kell SC. He last week confirmed he had received advice from Dr Kell, and he was “now considering” the ­matter.

Mr Nash said the magnitude of the case ­required a careful review of the evidence and the DPP’s decision-making.

“This is a three-year-old that was taken to be raped and then murdered,” Mr Nash said.

“How do they just shrug this off so easily?”

He had expected to be told Mr Speakman’s decision next week but was informed his additional material would be considered and could result in a further delay.

Mr Speakman yesterday said Dr Kell was reviewing the family’s new material “and will provide me with further advice”.

“I expect to discuss the matter with Cheryl’s family after I consider that advice,” he said.

Legal experts say Mr Speakman has a complex range of ­options open to him.

Associate professor Tyrone Kirchengast, from the University of Sydney Law School, said Mr Speakman had the power to launch an appeal against the confession’s exclusion.

Mr Speakman could also independently begin criminal proceedings, but this would be “highly irregular”, potentially pitting the Attorney-General against the DPP, Dr Kirchengast said.

The Attorney-General could also request the DPP, Mr Babb, to reconsider his position. Or, based on the advice from Dr Kell, he could take no action.

Mr Speakman may have asked for a review of all the evidence and the prosecution’s decision-making, including whether the DPP should have appealed.

“The remit might look at even if that evidence was admitted, would there be prospects of conviction,” Dr Kirchengast said.

A government fact sheet says Mr Speakman can launch criminal proceedings and appeals in “extraordinary circumstances”.

The accused was 17 when he confessed to Cheryl’s abduction and murder.

Police did not consider they had enough evidence to charge him, until NSW detectives began reinvestigating in 2016.

He was arrested and charged in March 2017, making history as one of the oldest Australian cold cases to reach court.

Laws now require a parent, other adult or lawyer to be present for child confessions to be ­admissible, but this was not the case at the time.

Judge Robert Allan Hulme found that the new laws applied retrospectively.

In excluding the confession, Justice Hulme noted the “particular vulnerability” of the accused and the police interview style. A caution was issued as soon as the teenager started making admissions, but not before.