The Moyle Report. (Press, 17 April 1978)

In a recent interview, Mr Connelly reiterated his shock regarding not having received the police file related to a significant incident, stating he had not thought of it in such terms. Sir Alfred subsequently asked Mr Rowling if he had anything to add, to which Mr Rowling responded that he never saw the letter or its attachments and did not concern himself with the incident at hand due to his long acquaintance with Mr Moyle. Reflection on the matter led him to conclude that perhaps had he been informed more promptly, history might have unfolded differently. After a day’s break, Sir Alfred continued to question other key figures: Mr Muldoon and Mr McCready, both of whom confirmed they had not seen the police file at any stage. Sir Alfred informed them that Mr Connelly had indeed accessed the file, although he could not divulge its details. Mr Muldoon explained that he had received the information from a press gallery source familiar with police matters shortly after the event occurred. The information implied that a policeman had been invited by Mr Moyle for questionable activities, and it circulated widely among the press and within Parliament, albeit with varying details. Mr Muldoon indicated that while he often received informal tips that blended fact with speculation, he believed this particular detail was credible enough to have reached the attention of the Minister of Police and the Prime Minister. He clarified that his only official information regarding the incident was a follow-up on the statement made by Mr Moyle in the House, which was ultimately deemed inaccurate. Sir Alfred then sought to establish whether any official knowledge regarding Mr Moyle's conduct had reached Mr Muldoon at any point, to which Mr Muldoon affirmed he had received no such information. He maintained that the only formal communication he had regarding the incident was to clarify the accuracy of Mr Moyle’s statements. In the latter part of the inquiry, Sir Alfred also solicited Mr Moyle’s testimony, asserting that he had reviewed all relevant police files and spoken to the officers involved. He pressed Mr Moyle on whether he still maintained that he had not altered his statement in Parliament. Mr Moyle insisted that his statement, viewed as made under oath, was consistent and that he had only issued a small confirmatory update, asserting that it aligned with the police files. This inquiry reveals the complex dynamics involving information dissemination, official statements, and the impact of personal histories in the realm of politics, as illustrated through the testimonies of various key figures surrounding the incident.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand