The Moyle Report

Press, 17 April 1978, Page 11

The Moyle Report

Sir Alfred: Your statement' in Parliament of course entirely rejected your previous one about being involved in' research into homosexual activity, did it not? Mr Moyle: The statement! in Parliament was a chronology of the events of the, encounter with the constable' and does omit the question of being involved in any investigations of matters concerning — of meeting someone to discuss questions of homosexuality. That is the statement in Parliament. Sir Alfred: And do you’ claim that your earlier statement to Chief Superintendent Kelly was wrong? Mr Moyle: Yes. Sir Alfred: It was a screen was it, or what? Mr Moyle: Yes. I was in a very difficult position quite frankly. At this stage do you wish me to talk about the actual reason? Sir Alfred: Well. I reallywanted to start off by just finding where the issue be-, tween us is. I do not want to interfere in any way with how you would like to do it. Mr Moyle: Well, as far as 1 am concerned the statement I made in Parliament; was a chronology of the events of the encounter with the constable, and in that -e--spect 1 know of no reason’ why there should be any difference in that with what was on the police file. My, counsel has since showed my the police file, and I want to take issue, if I may, with two matters in it. Sir Alfred: Yes. of course. Sir Alfred said Mr Moyle had then gone on to question the correctness of Constable Corner’s statement that as he was walking down Harris Street he noticed a car parked about 15 yards ahead of him Mr Moyle said that he had first seen the person, who turned out to be a constable m Victoria Street, and the person had drawn back. j Then he had turned into Harris Street and stopped his car about 40 yards from the corne - and the constable after some hesitation had gone down the street to where his (Mr Moyle’s) car had been parked. “I slowed down at the corner because the man who turned out to be Constable Corner was still in Victoria Street. 1 did this to observe the man. and then moved on Into Harris Street and parked quite a way down.” Sir Alfred: Constable Corner savs that vou said, ‘Hop in.’ I

Mr Moyle: Well there it comes to a very truncated account of our conversation. Sir Alfred: But did you invite him to get into your car? Mr Moyle: I was assuming that he was a person I was going to meet there because he had come up to my car. Sir Alfred: You are now talking about vour final statement to Mr Walton? Mr Moyle: Yes. Sir Alfred: The reason that you may have used the ' words ‘hop in,’ I understand you to say, is that you , thought he was the person you were due to meet for information on political matters? Mr Moyle: Yes. Sir Alfred: Does that put lit fairly? Mr Moyle: Yes. Although to start with I was quite sure that he was not the person, because I was expecting to meet somebody in my view who would have been considerably older than this person, who looked quite a young person. Sir Alfred: You might have said you would take him round to your home? Mr Moyle: Oh yes, that is quite possible. In fact I think I gave him the option of a number of places because I was assuming he wished to convey confidential information to me, and for that reason I gave I him the option of where he wanted to go, to any one of > those places — or anywhere at all for that matter. Sir Alfred said he then turned to the question of Mr Moyle’s interview with Chief Superintendent Kelly. Sir Alfred: You will see from the material I gave your solicitor on Tuesday last that there is a straight--1 out statement attributed to you as your reason for being in the place where you were accosted by Constable Corner was because you were engaged in research into homosexual activities. Do vou denv on oath that you ever said those things? Mr Moyle: No. I do not deny it at all. That is what 1 said. Sir Allred: That is what you said, but you had reasons for not stating the truth? Mr Moyle: Yes. Sir Alfred: Then you have no real complaint or criti- , cism to make about what Constable Corner reported? i Mr Moyle: True. Sir Alfred: You do not challenge the report of Superintendent Kelly, dated June 18? Mr Moyle: No, I do not challenge it at all. Sir Alfred: On June 19 this file with Kelly’s and Corner’s reports was sent to Mr Connelly. Mr Moyle: 1 did not know that. My only knowledge of Mick Connelly knowing anything at all was a request from him in the corridor of Parliament buildings to ring Mr Walton at his home number and that was all. 1 Sir Alfred said he had

,next referred to the record .of the interview Mr Moyle I had had with Mr Walton and had inquired whether he ’had seen it. He had agreed jhe had. Sir Alfred: Is there anything wrong in that statement? Mr Moyle: Well, it was in i the same vein as my reason ■ for being there that I gave ito Kelly, but, of course, 1 being faced with Mr Walton .for other reasons that are ! discussed later I accepted! the explanation I had earlier i given to Superintendent Kelly. i Sir Alfred: You never de-i ■ nied at the interview what' I you had told Kelly? Mr Moyle: No. Sir Alfred said be had dis-| j cussed with Mr Moyle his i j contention that the incident; iof June 17 had nothing to; idp with homosexuality and ! recorded the following pass-! \ age from Mr Moyle’s evi- ! dence: Sir Alfred: Then you got; into this position that what I you said in Parliament a j iyear later is quite divergent! ! from your earlier ex- i planations. Do you expect ;me to believe you? I Mr Moyle: Well, lam on; i oath now, and I regarded my! ' statement in Parliament as ' being on oath. I was certainly faced with a dilemma in that one of the persons directly concerned or implicated in our suspicions was a senior police officer and! , probably Walton. I could 1 possibly at that stage — I ■ did not feel justified because !it was a rumour and unsub- j i stantiated. Sir Alfred: But why could iyou not tell Kelly that? Mr Moyle: Well, Kelly is I another senior police officer. | Sir Alfred: Why could you ■ not tell Kelly? ! Mr Moyle: Look, I was , there for political reasons. I was to get information about matters that affected my party and the safety of ! the country. I Sir Alfred: Why could you; not have said something like' that? Mr Moyle: I suppose I, could have said that. Sir Alfred: Yes. but to say that you were there on a homosexual investigation seems like a “tell it to the marines” story . . . people are mean enough to put all: sorts of interpretations on ,it. Mr Moyle: Yes. As I say, I did not want to give any indication to the police officers that .1 was investigating security leaks. I thought in those circumstances it was better to deal with something that was personal. Sir Alfred said he thought that covered sufficiently the evidence he had heard inj (Wellington. The transcript of evidence ran to 92 pages, he said. Sir Alfred’s report covers 43 pages and there are another 12 pages of' police! (Statements attached to it. j