Rodney Fallowfield was released on parole in 2023 after serving part of a sentence for killing his wife, Shirley Reedy. Three years later, he has pleaded guilty to murdering two men in Christchurch. The case raises serious questions about how risk is assessed, how parole decisions are made and what the justice system can learn when a person previously convicted of a killing commits further fatal violence.
eLocal Report: Based on reporting by Sam Sherwood for RNZ HERE.
Two Murders, One Disturbing History
Rodney Fallowfield, 58, appeared before the High Court at Christchurch on Thursday, 29 October 2026, and pleaded guilty to murdering Glen Allan Tukaki and Nigel John Robinson. The killings followed an incident at a Phillipstown property on 10 October.
Fallowfield also admitted charges of wounding with reckless disregard and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He is scheduled to be sentenced on 7 April 2027.
What makes the case particularly significant is that Fallowfield had previously been convicted of killing his wife, Shirley Reedy, while the couple were on their honeymoon.
In October 2021, he was sentenced to four years and three months' imprisonment after being acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. He was subsequently released on parole in September 2023.
Three years after that release, two more people were killed.
The sequence raises an unavoidable public-interest question: what did the justice system know about Fallowfield's risk of further violence, and how was that information assessed before his release?
The Killing of Shirley Reedy
Shirley Reedy and Rodney Fallowfield. Photo: Supplied, via RNZ.
Shirley Reedy's death was the subject of criminal proceedings that resulted in Fallowfield's manslaughter conviction in 2021.
The distinction between murder and manslaughter matters. Fallowfield was found not guilty of murdering Reedy, and that verdict must be respected. His conviction established criminal responsibility for her death, but not the legal elements required for a murder conviction.
That earlier conviction nevertheless formed an essential part of the background against which his subsequent release was considered.
For Reedy's family, the consequences were already permanent. According to the Parole Board decision reported by RNZ, one of her relatives told the Board they had forgiven Fallowfield but wanted to understand why he had killed her.
The family was seeking something beyond a description of the offence. They wanted an explanation.
The Board put that question to Fallowfield, who expressed remorse and said the killing would continue to haunt him.
What the Parole Board Was Told
RNZ's reporting provides important details from the decision that preceded Fallowfield's release in September 2023.
At that time, Fallowfield had been undertaking individual psychological sessions for approximately three months. The Board was told he had engaged positively with that work and had learned strategies for removing himself from highly stressful situations.
His expressions of remorse were regarded as genuine. A principal corrections officer also provided an excellent report.
The Board considered his presentation, progress in prison, proposed accommodation, future employment plans and available community support.
Its decision recorded that he was assessed as presenting a low risk of reoffending and was no longer considered an undue risk, taking account of the conditions that would accompany his release.
These details are important because they establish the basis on which parole was granted. They do not establish that the Board ignored known warnings or deliberately disregarded evidence of danger.
They do, however, create a compelling reason to examine how that risk assessment was reached and whether the information available at the time was sufficient.
The Limits of Predicting Violence
Risk assessments are intended to estimate the likelihood of future offending using the information available at the time. They are not guarantees about how an individual will behave.
The distinction matters because a serious offence committed after parole does not automatically prove that the original assessment was negligent or irrational. A person assessed as presenting a low risk can still commit an extremely serious crime.
However, when a person previously convicted of a killing subsequently admits two murders, the consequences are sufficiently grave to justify a detailed examination of the original assessment, the evidence considered and the supervision arrangements that followed.
The Parole Board's decision also recorded that Fallowfield's statutory release date was approximately a year away. That matters because refusing parole would not necessarily have meant indefinite detention. The question is whether continued imprisonment, further rehabilitation or different release arrangements could have reduced the risk.
Those possibilities cannot be resolved from RNZ's account alone.
The Questions That Must Be Answered
Rodney Fallowfield at a court appearance earlier in October 2026. Photo: Nate McKinnon/RNZ.
The first question concerns the assessment of Fallowfield's earlier violence. What factors led to his classification as a low risk of reoffending, and how were the circumstances of Shirley Reedy's death incorporated into that assessment?
The second concerns rehabilitation. RNZ reported approximately three months of individual psychological sessions before the parole decision. What treatment objectives were established, how was progress measured and what evidence supported the conclusion that his risk had been sufficiently reduced?
The third concerns supervision after release. What conditions applied, how long did they remain in force and were any concerns identified during the period in which he was monitored?
Finally, what happened between his release in September 2023 and the killings in October 2026? Establishing that timeline may be essential to understanding whether warning signs existed and whether any agency had an opportunity to intervene.
These are questions for the Parole Board, Corrections and other relevant authorities. They should not be treated as allegations of misconduct without supporting evidence.
The Victims Must Not Be Forgotten
Much of the public discussion will understandably focus on Fallowfield's previous conviction and parole history. But the latest proceedings concern two men whose lives were taken: Glen Allan Tukaki and Nigel John Robinson.
Their deaths are not merely evidence in a debate about the effectiveness of the justice system. They are the central human consequences of the offending to which Fallowfield has now pleaded guilty.
Shirley Reedy's death must also remain part of the story. Her family had already endured a killing, a criminal trial and the subsequent parole process.
Any examination of this case should recognise all three victims while ensuring that the facts surrounding the latest offences are established through the court proceedings.
Will This Make New Zealand Stronger?
Will this make New Zealand stronger? That depends on whether the justice system responds to cases of serious reoffending with transparent examination and evidence-based improvements rather than explanations that leave important questions unanswered.
Parole decisions involve competing responsibilities. Authorities must consider rehabilitation, lawful release and the protection of the public. No risk-assessment system can predict every future act of violence, but serious failures or weaknesses, where established, must be identified and addressed.
Fallowfield's guilty pleas establish his responsibility for the two murders. They do not, on their own, establish that the Parole Board breached its duties when granting release three years earlier.
The public is nevertheless entitled to know whether the assessment and supervision processes operated as intended, whether relevant warning signs were missed and whether changes could better protect the community.
With sentencing scheduled for 7 April 2027, the criminal proceedings are not yet complete. The broader questions about public safety and accountability deserve careful scrutiny.
Sources
Original photographs retained from RNZ reporting. Credits: Nathan/Nate McKinnon, RNZ; and supplied photograph of Shirley Reedy and Rodney Fallowfield.