Mr Titford had objected to the presence of a reporter because of expected media hostility, was overruled, and the Herald published Allan Titford’s denied parole amid claims of unfair treatment (yes, that was how it appeared) on August 16, 2025.
Mr Titford was jailed for 24 years on November 20, 2013, after being found guilty of 39 charges that included allegedly raping his wife, assault with a weapon, arson, threatening to kill, using a firearm with intent to injure, assaulting a child, and perjury.
Mr Titford stands by his not-guilty pleas, a position supported by evidence not presented to the court.
As expected, about one third of the Herald article rehashed hostile coverage from the media firestorm that erupted after his sentencing.
The posting of the current Herald story on multiple legacy media outlets as well as on social media has reignited that old firestorm.
No stranger to intense media attention, Mr Titford and his neighbour Don Harrison, two farmers on the Kauri Coast 40km north of Dargaville, were targeted in a high-profile Maori land protest and occupation starting in 1987.
Both were forced to sell, at bargain-basement prices, to the only interested buyer, the Government, which had by then adopted a policy of appeasing Maori claims for land.
I attended the hearing as a support person for Mr Titford.
After a one-hour wait, the hearing started with a parole board member, who appeared to act as chair of the meeting, declaring that Allan lacked an approved address.\
Unsaid but clear to everyone present was the message "no approved address therefore no parole".
Normally, the parole decision is made at the end of the hearing, after submissions are heard.
The early, blunt denial of parole stressed Mr Titford, who somewhat plaintively argued he had three courts - the High Court and the Environmental Court in NZ, as well as a court in Australia - waiting for him to get parole to complete the court actions.
The Parole Board was undeterred. Mr Titford asked to read a statement. After a brief exchange, he was allowed to proceed.
He managed to say that his risk was low for violent offending low and low or average for sex offending.
[For the record, one of the five psychologists who had written lengthy reports on his risk over the past five years that his actual risk was about the same as any man of his age.]
But when he said that he had served 12.5 years, which he said covered the rape and violence charges, the above-mentioned meeting chair intervened by saying that he was talking about matters that were outside the Parole Board's scope.
The chairman said that Mr Titford had been given a term of 24 years and that the board had to be sure that, if Mr Titford was released, the community would be safe from him until 2037.
He was unable to say that, according to the cumulative sentence structure outlined in his warrants of committal, he had served his sex and violence sentences, and only had less than three years to go to have served his full sentence.
Titford expressed frustration at the failure of more than 12 years seeking justice and trying to modify his circumstances to please the Parole Board. He raised his voice when trying to defend what he was saying, then abruptly asked if I would take over.
I told the board that I found that the Auckland South Correctional Facility difficult to deal with, and that speaking as an accommodation provider, accommodating Mr Titford as a parolee has been much more complicated than the processes I have experienced with other parolees. Tension at the hearing de-escalated.
Reporter Al Williams intro-ed his 329-word piece by saying Mr Titford “lashed out at the Parole Board” and, after a superficial account of the hearing, filled out one third of his story by cutting and pasting anti-Titford rhetoric from 2013 news stories. He wrote that:
• Titford burnt down a house on his property and blamed it on iwi, and
• Titford’s ex-wife said he had kept her “as a slave” for 22 years.
In fact, Titford was found guilty of burning down a house, a decision he continues to dispute, with supporting evidence.
Court reporting 101 teaches that being found guilty of burning down a house does not necessarily mean that Mr Titford actually burned down the house. Al Williams should have been taught that.
And Mr Titford repeatedly says that he never blamed iwi.
The court was not told that during the 1987 Maunganui Bluff land claim, Mrs Titford wrote two letters to Prime Minister David Lange and one to the Queen.
Those letters include detailed time-lines of events during the occupation, which Mrs Titford complained bitterly about and pleaded for government help.
Such impassioned letters don’t look like the actions of a slave. None of this evidence was presented to the court.
Another fact not mentioned in that trial was that Susan’s first complaint to police, on July 30, 2009, at Kaitaia, alleged a single rape, in 1987, which was 22 years before the date of the complaint, not three rapes for which Mr Titford has been convicted.
Police did not introduce this statement as evidence, so the court did not get to find about this, and the ex-wife was not examined or cross examined on this discrepancy.
Instead, the police caption summary of facts, which was presented to the court, said that the ex-wife made a statement in May 2010 at Hikurangi.
In fact, her first written statement to police, that she signed as true and correct and which was initialled by a police officer identified by a service number, at Kaitaia, was dated July 30, 2009, which was just a week after the alleged 2009 rape.
Mr Titford’s longest sentence, of 11 years four months, is for two rape charges, one in 2008 and the other in 2009. Both charges were conjured up after the ex-wife’s first complaint of a single rape.
After that alleged 1987 rape, the ex-wife went on to give birth to seven children by the alleged rapist. Two of the rape convictions were majority verdicts, indicating that on these counts the verdicts were not beyond reasonable doubt as required.
Both Mr Titford and the Herald reporter appear to agree that Mr Titford’s 2013 trial is a consequence of what happened at Maunganui Bluff in 1987.
The Herald sides with Judge Harvey’s narrative, as he told Mr Titford during sentencing, that “you decided that the Government was not co-operating over compensation” and that “one of the tragedies of your actions in destroying your own property is that you’ve blamed that on Maori and allowed to broadcast to the entire country all [the] damage caused by them.”
Yet Mrs Titford’s narrative in 1987 was of “a Maori problem with them squatting on the land" and that "We can’t farm 400 acres of the farm because they shoot the cattle. They’ve burnt down one of our houses. They sabotaged our bulldozer, we had a bike stolen, and we’ve had death threats”.
Mrs Titford wrote that in a letter to the Queen dated May 9, 1989, which was 20 years before her first statement to police. She was not examined and cross examined, in 2013, on how and why she changed her story.
Mr Titford has not deviated from what he said and did in 1989.
Since the former Mrs Titford’s July 30, 2009, first statement was not available to the court, jurors did not see that it did not include anything about the Maunganui Bluff farm occupation by Maori activists.
That change came after a meeting on February 9, 2010, with her local MP, John Carter who was at that time the Minister of Civil Defence.
Carter asked her to make a list of all she could recall about events at Maunganui Bluff. That led to nine charges, four of which he was found guilty of.
But wait, there is more. Mr Titford's research into the history of the land on his former Maunganui Bluff farm turned up evidence of document tampering by claimants that led the Waitangi Tribunal to reach an inaccurate decision in 1992.
Land claims such as the one that has wrecked Mr Titford's life continue to target hapless property owners and the government continues to look the other way.
Mr Titford’s next parole hearing is next April. He will put forward yet another address, outside the exclusion zone, which is anywhere north of the Hamilton southern city limits.
However, worrying is a comment by a board member at the hearing who said “it is not just about an approved address, it is not the only piece of the puzzle.”
If not deemed risk and approved accommodation, what exactly are those other pieces of the puzzle that keep Mr Titford locked up?
In our somewhat rickety system, in which surgeons bury their mistakes and judges lock them up, and with the political meddling that has already taken place in his case, Mr Titford faces the very real possibility of being locked up until 2037.
Mike Butler wrote "24 Years: The Trials of Allan Titford" and "Innocent Nil Debit", available at https://trosspublishing.com/product/innocent-nil-debit/
Sources
Allan Titford’s denied parole amid claims of unfair treatment, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/allan-titfords-denied-parole-amid-claims-of-unfair-treatment/NFQ66A4JUBBK7IPPRDMMDG2SC4/
Mr Titford stands by his not-guilty pleas, a position supported by evidence not presented to the court.
As expected, about one third of the Herald article rehashed hostile coverage from the media firestorm that erupted after his sentencing.
The posting of the current Herald story on multiple legacy media outlets as well as on social media has reignited that old firestorm.
No stranger to intense media attention, Mr Titford and his neighbour Don Harrison, two farmers on the Kauri Coast 40km north of Dargaville, were targeted in a high-profile Maori land protest and occupation starting in 1987.
Both were forced to sell, at bargain-basement prices, to the only interested buyer, the Government, which had by then adopted a policy of appeasing Maori claims for land.
I attended the hearing as a support person for Mr Titford.
After a one-hour wait, the hearing started with a parole board member, who appeared to act as chair of the meeting, declaring that Allan lacked an approved address.\
Unsaid but clear to everyone present was the message "no approved address therefore no parole".
Normally, the parole decision is made at the end of the hearing, after submissions are heard.
The early, blunt denial of parole stressed Mr Titford, who somewhat plaintively argued he had three courts - the High Court and the Environmental Court in NZ, as well as a court in Australia - waiting for him to get parole to complete the court actions.
The Parole Board was undeterred. Mr Titford asked to read a statement. After a brief exchange, he was allowed to proceed.
He managed to say that his risk was low for violent offending low and low or average for sex offending.
[For the record, one of the five psychologists who had written lengthy reports on his risk over the past five years that his actual risk was about the same as any man of his age.]
But when he said that he had served 12.5 years, which he said covered the rape and violence charges, the above-mentioned meeting chair intervened by saying that he was talking about matters that were outside the Parole Board's scope.
The chairman said that Mr Titford had been given a term of 24 years and that the board had to be sure that, if Mr Titford was released, the community would be safe from him until 2037.
He was unable to say that, according to the cumulative sentence structure outlined in his warrants of committal, he had served his sex and violence sentences, and only had less than three years to go to have served his full sentence.
Titford expressed frustration at the failure of more than 12 years seeking justice and trying to modify his circumstances to please the Parole Board. He raised his voice when trying to defend what he was saying, then abruptly asked if I would take over.
I told the board that I found that the Auckland South Correctional Facility difficult to deal with, and that speaking as an accommodation provider, accommodating Mr Titford as a parolee has been much more complicated than the processes I have experienced with other parolees. Tension at the hearing de-escalated.
Reporter Al Williams intro-ed his 329-word piece by saying Mr Titford “lashed out at the Parole Board” and, after a superficial account of the hearing, filled out one third of his story by cutting and pasting anti-Titford rhetoric from 2013 news stories. He wrote that:
• Titford burnt down a house on his property and blamed it on iwi, and
• Titford’s ex-wife said he had kept her “as a slave” for 22 years.
In fact, Titford was found guilty of burning down a house, a decision he continues to dispute, with supporting evidence.
Court reporting 101 teaches that being found guilty of burning down a house does not necessarily mean that Mr Titford actually burned down the house. Al Williams should have been taught that.
And Mr Titford repeatedly says that he never blamed iwi.
The court was not told that during the 1987 Maunganui Bluff land claim, Mrs Titford wrote two letters to Prime Minister David Lange and one to the Queen.
Those letters include detailed time-lines of events during the occupation, which Mrs Titford complained bitterly about and pleaded for government help.
Such impassioned letters don’t look like the actions of a slave. None of this evidence was presented to the court.
Another fact not mentioned in that trial was that Susan’s first complaint to police, on July 30, 2009, at Kaitaia, alleged a single rape, in 1987, which was 22 years before the date of the complaint, not three rapes for which Mr Titford has been convicted.
Police did not introduce this statement as evidence, so the court did not get to find about this, and the ex-wife was not examined or cross examined on this discrepancy.
Instead, the police caption summary of facts, which was presented to the court, said that the ex-wife made a statement in May 2010 at Hikurangi.
In fact, her first written statement to police, that she signed as true and correct and which was initialled by a police officer identified by a service number, at Kaitaia, was dated July 30, 2009, which was just a week after the alleged 2009 rape.
Mr Titford’s longest sentence, of 11 years four months, is for two rape charges, one in 2008 and the other in 2009. Both charges were conjured up after the ex-wife’s first complaint of a single rape.
After that alleged 1987 rape, the ex-wife went on to give birth to seven children by the alleged rapist. Two of the rape convictions were majority verdicts, indicating that on these counts the verdicts were not beyond reasonable doubt as required.
Both Mr Titford and the Herald reporter appear to agree that Mr Titford’s 2013 trial is a consequence of what happened at Maunganui Bluff in 1987.
The Herald sides with Judge Harvey’s narrative, as he told Mr Titford during sentencing, that “you decided that the Government was not co-operating over compensation” and that “one of the tragedies of your actions in destroying your own property is that you’ve blamed that on Maori and allowed to broadcast to the entire country all [the] damage caused by them.”
Yet Mrs Titford’s narrative in 1987 was of “a Maori problem with them squatting on the land" and that "We can’t farm 400 acres of the farm because they shoot the cattle. They’ve burnt down one of our houses. They sabotaged our bulldozer, we had a bike stolen, and we’ve had death threats”.
Mrs Titford wrote that in a letter to the Queen dated May 9, 1989, which was 20 years before her first statement to police. She was not examined and cross examined, in 2013, on how and why she changed her story.
Mr Titford has not deviated from what he said and did in 1989.
Since the former Mrs Titford’s July 30, 2009, first statement was not available to the court, jurors did not see that it did not include anything about the Maunganui Bluff farm occupation by Maori activists.
That change came after a meeting on February 9, 2010, with her local MP, John Carter who was at that time the Minister of Civil Defence.
Carter asked her to make a list of all she could recall about events at Maunganui Bluff. That led to nine charges, four of which he was found guilty of.
But wait, there is more. Mr Titford's research into the history of the land on his former Maunganui Bluff farm turned up evidence of document tampering by claimants that led the Waitangi Tribunal to reach an inaccurate decision in 1992.
Land claims such as the one that has wrecked Mr Titford's life continue to target hapless property owners and the government continues to look the other way.
Mr Titford’s next parole hearing is next April. He will put forward yet another address, outside the exclusion zone, which is anywhere north of the Hamilton southern city limits.
However, worrying is a comment by a board member at the hearing who said “it is not just about an approved address, it is not the only piece of the puzzle.”
If not deemed risk and approved accommodation, what exactly are those other pieces of the puzzle that keep Mr Titford locked up?
In our somewhat rickety system, in which surgeons bury their mistakes and judges lock them up, and with the political meddling that has already taken place in his case, Mr Titford faces the very real possibility of being locked up until 2037.
Mike Butler wrote "24 Years: The Trials of Allan Titford" and "Innocent Nil Debit", available at https://trosspublishing.com/product/innocent-nil-debit/
Sources
Allan Titford’s denied parole amid claims of unfair treatment, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/allan-titfords-denied-parole-amid-claims-of-unfair-treatment/NFQ66A4JUBBK7IPPRDMMDG2SC4/
5 comments:
Allan Titford purchased Crown issued, Maori claim free freehold titled land in 1986.
“Not one square inch of freehold titled land would be taken for a Maori claim” said Prime Minister Lange to the Nation in 1988.
The Waitangi Tribunal, in 1992, recommended to the Crown, “no matter what the cost,” that Titford’s freehold titled land be returned to Te Rora. (claim Wai 38)
Resisting Crown pressure to sign over his freehold titled land to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged claim”, by devious and foul means he was forced to sign over his farm under duress and without legal advice to the Crown in 1995.
One of many “travesties of justice” committed by the Crown on innocent hard working New Zealanders since the enacting of the 1975 TOW Act using the false fake Freeman English apartheid version that does not agree with the original Maori language text.
This reads like an appalling jack-up. Even if Mr Titford were guilty as charged 24 years seems an inordinately long time for the list of offences thus described. I think NZ has a shameful history of shonky court cases. Justice ?
Certainly looks to be targeted. Unfairly.
Many aspects of the case have been troubling throughout. I seem to recall there is great doubt about the maori claim. The influence of the Matrimonial Property Act rewards also questionable. As noted 24 years seems an age considering no one was killed.
Something smells incredibly "off". But then, just ask Scott Watson if our justice system really metes out fair and appropriate justice? Too many (there are quite few of them, and even one is too many), too often, it has failed.
Post a Comment