The Moyle Report.

Press, 17 April 1978, Page 11

The Moyle Report.

Later in the interview Mr' Connelly once again discussed the question whether he had received the police file, and said: “I remember there were those attach-’ ments to that letter now, but I never conceived of having a file. I never thought in terms.of a file.” Sir Alfred said he asked Mr Rowling towards the end of the interview if there was anything he would like to say. Mr Rowhng replied: “There is little I can comment. I a' no stage saw the letter or the attachments. Mr Connelly made a verbal comment which did not, I am bound to say — though in retrospect I ponder upon it — occasion any undue alarm as far as 1 was concerned, and I think this isi probably as much as anything due to the fact that ! had known Mr Moyle for such a long period of time. I was not in any way concerned that he could have got himself into a bind with the police on, as far as !• could see. any matters ... ' “As I said, at the time I did not so much as comment: to Mr Moyle on the incident. 1 cannot recollect the circumstances of that, but there is a presumption there! that at the time the Minister: mentioned it to me it might have been that I did not see him for a day or two and the thing simply went by. As I say, I was not unduly disturbed. If it had been mentioned history might! have taken a different course." Sir Alfred said that, after a break of a day, he questioned the three remaining witnesses, Mr Muldoon, Mr McCready, and Mr Moyle. | He records the following questioning of Mr Muldoon I and Mr McCready:— Sir Alfred: Can you tell me as a first step whether you had seen the police file! at an earlier stage before: you made the first state-1 ment. Mr Muldoon: No. I have not seen the police file ever, at any time. Sir Alfred said he then: asked Mr McCready the same question, and he re-' plied: I have never seen the file. no. Sir Alfred: You are entitled to know that Mr Connelly did get the file of this; incident. What use h made of it I am not at liberty to ; discuss. But he did get it,' and it was not completely: new to him. When the trouble happened and the statements were made in the> House that followed the in-; cident, you used language | which they (Mr Rowling and Mr Connelly) attributed as meaning you must have seen l Mr Muldoon: Perhaps I can tell you to the best of I my recollection what hap-' pened. I have a number erf

old friends in the press gallery who have been in Par-1 liament broadly as long as I| have. From time to time one; or other tells me things that are not publicly known or have been known. On this occasion one of them — and I guess within a day ar two of the event — told me that he had heard from one of his police contact this story, and he gave me considerable detail which I now have reason to believe was accurate. Sir Alfred: Do you mind telling me. I want to record it. Mr Muldoon: As best I can recall, and when I say “police contact” I mean not a senior officer of the police, but the journalists have their contacts in the police, as I think we all know. This was being talked about throughout the police force as we subsequently discovered, because the story came back from a number of different places, including Auckland, in substantially the same detail — that a policeman in plain clothes had been invited by the Min-: ister to go in his car to Ori-! ental Parade for homosexual! purposes. The story varied: in detail from time'to time but in essence this was it. I And this has been repeated and talked about in Parliament buildings virtually ever since, comine back from a number of different sources,! but always with the same general detail being prettv much in that area. Sir Alfred: So ■ actually when you made your first statement you really were using your general knowledge I cuppose? Mr Muldoon: Well, in essence, yes, but as you realise, after some years of experience one learns to distinguish between stories that have a foundation in fact! and those that do not. The man who told me is completely reliable. It is this I kind af thing that these people pass on, something! unusual, something that is: not generally known. I could j go a step further and say: that I was also certain that, it had been brought to the notice of the Minister of Police and the Prime Minister, because on a subsequent occasion this year involving Mr O’Brien, the details ofthe incident were reported: to the Minister of Police im-i mediately, and it was put on my desk by him immediately, | and I am sure that the same! procedure would apply in ' the previous Government. | Sir Alfred: But, of course, if you had got this information about the behaviour of Mr Moyle in an official capacity you could not possibly have properly said that ! in public? .Mr Muldoon: Oh, no, at. no time did I get if. Officially, either in Opposi-1

ition or Government. The: i only official information I! 'have had at any time was, ion the Friday morning fol-’ lowing the incident in the House, and doubtless Mr Burnside has indicated to | you what he told me at my: request. I, in essence, asked whether the statement made by Mr Moyle in the House that morning was in accord with the facts. In essence he said it was not, and at that' stage I made a further statement in the House because the Commissioner of Police was, 1 think, quite concerned and anxious at the turn of events, and it seemed to me that it was necessary for me to make a further statement, with a view to tidying the! thing up. Well, things progressed from there. Sir Alfred: I can quite understand that. Of course a lot of people think you j should not have said it any-! how, do they not? Mr Muldoon: Well, a lot of people do. • j Sir Alfred: I suppose in a way you could have been! ; riled at the time? Mr .Muldoon: Well, I was! and I think I should put in' for your information this letter from my partners and the accompanying letter —' it is a photostat from Mr, i Moyle which I think may, help you in one aspect of! the inquiry. . . I was angry because I think you will agree allegations directed at a professional firm are very serious indeed.” Sir Alfred said he decided, in fairness to Mr Moyle that all the other evidence should be given before he was asked for his comments on; both incidents. Mr Moyle then gave his; evidence on oath. Sir Alfred records the fol-1 lowing passages from his; .evidence:— Sir Alfred: I have all the police files and I have been (through them. I saw every policeman who was connected with it — Corner, Burr, Kelly, Walton, and i Burnside. And, of course; ;what I am principally concerned about is do you still wish to contend that you did not change your story in your statement in Parliament? How do you feel about it? Mr Moyle: Can I refer to my statement? Sir Alfred: Yes, of course. I Mr Moyle: I regard my .statement in Parliament as; being a statement on oath. l| have only made the one [Statement as such. I did! make a small additional one; which was merely con-; firming ■ the former one. To the best of my knowledge — in answer to your question! — there is nothing in my statement that is not in accord with the files. Sir Alfred: You mean your statement in Parliament? Mr Moyle: Yes.