Grimmer kin push for NSW audit into 1970 Cheryl disappearance 2026

Key Points

• The family of Cheryl Grimmer is now giving 29 September 2026 as a deadline for New South Wales Premier Chris Minns to initiate an independent inquiry of how officials managed the disappearance case of 1970.
• It comes after the decision on 16 September 2026 by New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sally Dowling SC to maintain the cessation of prosecution of the man nicknamed “Mercury.”
• In the 22 September letter addressed to Premier Minns and Attorney-General Michael Daley, the family alleged that the DPP engaged in “catastrophic failure of public accountability,” saying that the review process failed to take into account their detailed submission.
• In case there would be no response to this ultimatum by the deadline, the family will seek to enlist sympathetic members of the NSW Legislative Council to invoke parliamentary processes to access documents related to the case.
• The family is still “devastated and deeply angered” despite providing over 1,000 pages of legal and evidence-based submission only to get a two-page determination by the DPP.
• $1 million reward for any information on the disappearance of Cheryl is still on offer while the suspicious death is under investigation by the Homicide Squad.

Wales (Wales Times) September 24, 2026 — The relatives of three-year-old Cheryl Grimmer, who vanished from Fairy Meadow Beach near Wollongong on 12 January 1970, have escalated their campaign for answers by demanding an independent audit of the New South Wales government’s handling of the case.

As reported by ABC News Australia, the family has given Premier Chris Minns until 29 September 2026 to agree to the audit or face a push by supportive MPs in the state’s upper house to compel the release of government records connected to the investigation and prosecution decisions over more than five decades.

In a letter dated 22 September addressed to Premier Minns and NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley, the family accused Director of Public Prosecutions Sally Dowling SC of a “catastrophic failure of public accountability” after she upheld the decision to discontinue the murder prosecution against the man known in court as “Mercury”.

The family’s solicitor, Michael Grimmer Cheryl’s cousin has been central to preparing extensive legal submissions arguing that the case warranted further scrutiny, particularly in light of new witness accounts and questions over how Mercury’s 1971 confession was handled.

Why did the DPP uphold the decision to drop the Mercury prosecution?

The DPP’s review centred on whether the 2019 NSW Supreme Court ruling by Justice Robert Hulme — which excluded Mercury’s recorded police interview from evidence — was reasonably open to challenge.

In a two-page letter emailed to the family on 16 September, Ms Dowling wrote that she had reviewed the case “afresh to determine if the decision not to proceed further was correct”.

“As you appreciate, this question turns on whether the exclusion of the recorded interview with Mercury by the trial judge is reasonably open to challenge,” she wrote. “After careful consideration I have concluded that it is not, and that therefore the original decision to take no further proceedings following that ruling was correct.”

Justice Hulme had previously found that the 1971 interview did not meet legal safeguards applicable to admissions made by children, including the presence of an adult, and that using the recording at trial would be unfair given Mercury’s vulnerability at the time.

The DPP said there were “not reasonable prospects of succeeding in a challenge to the trial judge’s determination” on the admissibility of Mercury’s admissions, and therefore the decision to take no further proceedings remained correct.

How has the family responded to the DPP’s determination?

Cheryl’s brother, Ricki Nash, said the family was “utterly disgusted, devastated and deeply angry” at the outcome of the review under the ODPP Victims’ Right of Review Policy.

He contrasted the 54 detailed legal and evidentiary submissions contained in material he estimated at more than 1,000 pages with the DPP’s brief determination, whose substantive response amounted to only several paragraphs.

“We have received an extraordinarily brief determination. To describe the findings as disappointing is an understatement,”

Mr Nash said.

The family believes the review focused narrowly on whether the original ruling could be challenged, rather than fully reconsidering and responding to the issues raised in their submissions, including potential new witness evidence that emerged after renewed publicity from BBC reporter Jon Kay’s podcast, Fairy Meadow*.

Mr Nash said the family wanted the DPP to explain in detail why its submissions did not justify further action. “Put some effort into Cheryl and our family,” he said.

The family has not ruled out meeting with Ms Dowling but wants seven specific questions answered in writing first.

What new evidence and witness accounts have emerged?

The family and their legal team say significant new material has emerged since the 2019 prosecution collapsed, including accounts from potential witnesses who came forward after the BBC podcast brought renewed attention to the case.

In 2023, a man told the podcast he saw a young man “in full stride with this baby on his hip” near Fairy Meadow Beach in 1970, prompting calls from a former detective for the claims to be investigated.

A spokesperson for the Grimmer family has called for a fresh inquest into Cheryl’s death, arguing that the totality of the evidence — including Mercury’s detailed admissions about Cheryl and the circumstances of her disappearance — warrants the most rigorous examination possible.

NSW Police continue to assess what the family describes as significant new evidence, while maintaining that the suspicious death of Cheryl Grimmer remains under investigation by the State Crime Command’s Homicide Squad.

---

What role has the NSW Parliament played in the case?

NSW upper-house MP Jeremy Buckingham has been a prominent advocate for the Grimmer family, using parliamentary privilege in October 2025 to name Mercury after the family’s ultimatum for him to speak to them expired.

Mr Buckingham has offered the family an opportunity to give further evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into unsolved homicides and long-term missing-person cases, with hearings expected in October 2026.

He has also proposed a meeting between the family and Premier Chris Minns, and indicated he would advocate for legislative changes if the DPP maintains its position — including a proposed amendment to create an exception to the later requirement for an adult to be present for statements made by children before 1988.

However, State Treasurer Daniel Mookhey objected to that change, saying it would remove a safeguard in other cases.

In February 2026, the NSW Parliament passed a motion expressing support for the Grimmer family’s fight for justice, while the government insisted on amendments that removed the alleged perpetrator’s name from the resolution and eliminated calls for a new police investigation, noting the case remains open.

---

What is the government’s position on an independent audit?

Attorney-General Michael Daley said the key issue of the review was the exclusion of the recorded interview, a legal issue already considered by the NSW Supreme Court.

He said NSW Police continue working to provide the family with answers, and confirmed that a reward of AUD 1 million is still offered for information in the case.

However, his statement did not respond directly to the family’s demand for an independent audit of how the case has been handled by successive governments and agencies over 56 years.

The family’s ultimatum with a 29 September deadline now places pressure on Premier Minns and the Attorney-General to clarify whether they will commission an external review of investigative, prosecutorial and administrative decisions spanning from 1970 to the present.

Background to the Cheryl Grimmer disappearance and prosecution

Cheryl Grimmer was three years old when she disappeared on 12 January 1970 after leaving the changing rooms at Fairy Meadow Beach, north of Wollongong, while on a family day out with her mother and three siblings.

Her body has never been found, making her case one of Australia’s longest unresolved child abductions.

In 1971, a 17-year-old boy told police he had abducted and killed Cheryl. Investigators tried to corroborate his account but considered the available evidence insufficient to bring charges at the time.

Decades later, detectives reviewed the recording of that interview again. The man, referred to in court as “Mercury”, was charged with murder in 2017 and pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution collapsed in 2019 after Justice Robert Hulme ruled the police interview could not be used as evidence, citing child-protection legislation introduced in 1987 and fairness concerns given Mercury’s age and vulnerability during the 1971 interview.

Without the recording, prosecutors said they could not sustain the case, and the DPP discontinued proceedings.

Since then, the Grimmer family has campaigned for a fresh inquest, a new review of the legal decisions, and consideration of new witness evidence, culminating in the current push for an independent audit of the state’s handling of the case.

---

What could an independent audit mean for the Grimmer family and similar cold cases?

An independent audit, if commissioned, could examine investigative decisions, evidentiary assessments, prosecutorial reasoning and administrative practices across more than five decades of the Grimmer case.

For the Grimmer family, such a review could provide a comprehensive, external assessment of whether systemic failures, resource constraints or legal interpretations contributed to the case remaining unresolved, and whether alternative avenues such as legislative changes or a fresh inquest are warranted.

For families of other long-term missing persons and unsolved homicides in NSW including those covered by the current parliamentary inquiry into cases between 1965 and 2010 an audit in the Grimmer matter could set a precedent for how the state scrutinises cold-case handling, potentially influencing policy, resourcing and legislative reform.

If the government declines the audit and the deadline passes, the family’s plan to involve the Legislative Council to seek government documents could still force greater transparency, even without a formal independent review.