Update: A man accused of murdering missing Fairy Meadow toddler Cheryl Grimmer has walked free after the charge against him was dropped.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Director of Public Prosecutions has directed no further proceedings following the trial judge ruling the record of interview with the accused in April 1971 inadmissible.
In the absence of that interview, there was insufficient evidence for the case to proceed.
The man was released directly from court this afternoon.
Earlier: A man accused of murdering missing Fairy Meadow toddler Cheryl Grimmer almost 50 years ago has succeeded in having a crucial piece of evidence against him ruled inadmissible ahead of his scheduled May trial.
"The Crown accepts that its case cannot succeed without it," Justice Robert Allan Hulme said on Friday in his Supreme Court judgment ruling that the then-teenager's 1971 statement to police cannot be used in evidence against him.
The man, who cannot be named as he was underage at the time, pleaded not guilty in September 2018 to murdering the three-year-old.
She vanished from outside a shower block while with her mother and three older brothers at Fairy Meadow Beach on January 12, 1970.
The accused was aged 17 when he was interviewed by police for one hour and 40 minutes in April 1971.
"No parent, adult or legal practitioner was present at any stage of the police interview," the judge said.
The Crown submitted that at the time there was no mandatory requirement, legislative or otherwise, or even a guideline by way of police instruction, for an adult support person to be present during the interview.
The evidence before the judge relating to the teenager was made up of contemporaneous records and reports from 1970-71 derived from his interaction with the juvenile justice system.
"I hasten to add that any criminal behaviour was of a relative minor kind (e.g. petty theft) and that what seemed to be more concerning was the accused's frequent absconding from homes and from detention facilities."
The judge also heard evidence from two psychiatrists who agreed the teenager had a low average intelligence, was immature and more vulnerable than the average 17-year-old as a result of his disturbed upbringing, difficult relationship with his parents, history of running away form home, moving countries, low intellect and limited education.
"Both agreed that this meant the accused would have been vulnerable to influence and may have had a propensity to respond to the cues or expectations of others," the judge said.
He ruled that the interview should not be admitted in evidence, primarily due to reasons relating to the manner in which the interview was conducted and the particular vulnerability of the accused at the time.
Comment has been sought from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
AAP
More to come