Reports that Matter

The Southport Inquiry Report, Volume 1 · 2026

AR’s purchase of three machetes

Section 35 of 44

Original document ↗ · About this edition →

AR’s purchase of three machetes

95. AR succeeded in having three machetes delivered to 10 Old School Close.

The first machete (Springfields of Burton Ltd)

96. On 10 June 2023 at 23:34, AR made an order online for a ‘22-inch Bushcraft Survival Machete’ from Springfields.co.uk (Springfields of Burton Ltd, a third-generation family business catering largely to scout groups, activity centres and the bushcraft market), along with an ‘8 inch extra-large sharpening stone’. AR gave his details as “Alice […]”.399 Consistent with the approach taken in the inquiry’s disclosure, I have not used Alice’s surname in this report as it is assessed likely that Alice […] is a real individual in relation to whom AR illicitly obtained a copy of her (genuine) driving licence. There is no suggestion that she was involved in any wrongdoing, and her surname is redacted to protect her identity. The machete cost just £9.49. AR paid via PayPal using the email address a.megalania7@yahoo.com An automatic order confirmation was sent.400 SPRB000002.

200

97. On the morning of 12 June 2023, AR emailed the company asking, “Do I need to show ID?”401 Witness Statement of Mr Bullock SPRB000014/§12. The company’s initial age verification via the electoral roll failed. This would have been because, naturally, no one called Alice […] was registered on the electoral roll at AR’s family home. Springfields sent a text message and email requesting photo identification. On 12 June, Springfields also sent an email to “Alice” in response to AR’s email earlier that day. The material part read:

“Hello Alice, As you have ordered an age-restricted item we have to by law confirm that the person receiving this order is over 18, we do this via either the electoral roll or via some form of I.D. Would you be able to email us a photo or scan of either your driver’s license, passport, or birth certificate showing your full name and date of birth?”402 Witness Statement of Mr Bullock SPRB000014/§16.

98. The next day, 13 June 2023 AR provided a copy of a genuine driving licence in the name Alice (with a year of birth of 1991) with an address in Sunderland. That address obviously differed markedly from the delivery address of 10 Old School Close, Banks PR9 8SB. Later that day, Springfields replied to “Alice”, stating “Thank you for confirming your age, your order will be dispatched without delay. If you order again you will not be checked a second time”.403 Witness Statement of Luke Bullock SPRB000014/§18. The transaction, therefore, was completed.

99. Springfields used DPD or Royal Mail’s age verified delivery services for delivering bladed weapons. This particular order was delivered by DPD. Springfields had an arrangement with DPD that specifically acknowledged that bladed items, as defined in the OWA 2019, would be delivered and that they would be packaged and clearly labelled as containing a bladed product. DPD warranted that the delivery would be age verified and Springfields agreed that there would be age verification on purchase.404 SPRB000012.

100. The Inquiry obtained evidence from DPD about this order from Mr Glyn Johnson, their head of security.405 Witness Statement of Mr Johnson DPD000010. DPD records confirm that the machete was delivered to AR’s home address at 12:18 on 14 June 2023. DPD’s proof of age process required the driver to verify that the recipient was over the age of 18 either visually or by checking their identification, but they did not need to be the recipient named on the order.406 DPD000009. DPD had been able to trace the driver with the details provided by the Inquiry. The driver was interviewed by DPD and the driver recalled that the recipient for this order was a black adult male who he thought was older than his own age (46) and whom he described as having a “terrible attitude”.407 DPD000003/3-5. As someone who was obviously, visually, over the age of 18, no documentary identification would have been required under DPD’s procedures. The recipient was recorded as “RUDAKUBN” and not Alice.408 Witness Statement of Mr Johnson DPD000010/§7.

201

101. As I shall address in Chapter 12 dealing with AR’s family, AR’s father accepts that he took delivery of this parcel. He put the parcel on top of the wardrobe in his own bedroom. It was found there when the family home was searched after the attack. Springfields supplied the following image of the nature of the machete sold:409 SPRB000004.

102. This is consistent with the machete and sharpening stone as recovered by Merseyside Police from the top of AR’s parents’ wardrobe:410 MERP002936/23 – Disclosed but not published due to sensitive content.

202

104. Mr Luke Bullock, the Company Director of Springfields of Burton Ltd, gave evidence as to the company’s approach to age verification and online sales of knives and machetes.

105. I have significant concerns about the relative ease with which AR was able to order machetes, and more generally about the potential for harm of machetes as against their (as it seems to me currently) relatively limited legitimate use. I should, however, record that from consideration of Mr Bullock’s evidence, Springfields of Burton Ltd appear to be at what might be thought the ‘respectable end’ of the spectrum of online retailers of knives and machetes. I draw that conclusion because:

a. Springfields had an age verification process in place at the point of purchase and age verified delivery that appear to have met the legal requirements;

b. Their marketing of knives and machetes tends to avoid associations with the military and combat, and related imagery, and generally (although not without exception) avoided language around being ‘tactical’ in the products and descriptions of items on sale.412 His company sell a knife called a ‘Mora Bushcraft Black Tactical’, although Mr Bullock explained this was the manufacturer’s name; along with a ‘Strong Arm Fine Edge Gerber Knife’ which is described as a “fixed blade tactical knife”. Mr Bullock noted that in addition to these being manufacturers’ descriptions, the items were relatively expensive, and would – he thought – be unattractive to those buying knives to use for violence; T/S: 15/133/10-135/4. This is in contrast to the retailers Knife Warehouse and Hunting and Knives, sellers of the second and third machetes to whom I shall return. Mr Bullock explained that the company took account of College of Policing studies in deciding what knives to sell, such that if a knife might be “attractive” it was not cheap, and they refused to stock knives if they looked “threatening”;413 T/S: 15/106/20-107/10.

203

c. It is apparent that the company has in the past made reports to the police of suspicious enquiries and orders, and Mr Bullock has been active in liaison with the police over the approach to online knife sales. Mr Bullock explained that, on occasion, an item would not be shipped to the customer if on an internal check it appeared that the individual was, for instance, placing repeat orders for knives. The company is alert, therefore, to suspicious transactions. This may result in the delivery address being designated a ‘banned postcode’;414 T/S: 15/113/23-116/3.

d. As further detailed below, Springfields has further enhanced its procedures since the Southport attack, including a voluntary more precautionary approach on the sale of machetes.

106. Mr Bullock was candid in his acceptance that AR’s ability to purchase a machete using the identification of a woman called Alice living in a completely different part of the country revealed a vulnerability in Springfields’ systems at the time of this purchase. Mr Bullock also accepted that with what he knew now about the features of the order (the address being so different from the identification address, the request about whether he needed to show ID, and the time of day of the order) it ought to have raised suspicion.415 T/S: 15/129/8-17. However, Mr Bullock said that it was not unusual for people to move and for their driving licence address (for example) to no longer match the shipping address, or for people to have things delivered to a work address.416 T/S: 15/128/11-21. At the time there was no legal requirement to ensure that the identification provided (in this case a valid driving licence) matched the delivery address, nor to obtain a live image of the purchaser to ensure that it matched the form of identification provided.

107. In response to the suggestion that there are very limited legitimate uses for machetes in the UK, Mr Bullock maintained that there was a legitimate demand: they had sold machetes to a broccoli farm, a thatched roofing company, a vineyard and a ducal estate, and otherwise to those who wanted to clear ground.417 T/S: 15/132/1-133/4. He highlighted that in 2023 the Home Office, following a consultation process, had decided against banning the sale of machetes in the United Kingdom because they have legitimate uses.418 T/S: 15/133/5-9. Further information on this consultation and its result was provided in the follow up statement from Mr Hunt on behalf of the Home Office.419 HOM000207; HM Government (2023), ‘Government response to consultation and summary of public responses’. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/machetes-and-other-bladed-articles-proposed-legislation and Second Witness Statement of Mr Hunt HOM000221/§§17-28.

204

108. Springfields have introduced a number of significant changes since the Southport attack:

a. They now require photographic identification and also seek a live selfie that matches the identification.420 T/S: 15/117/12-25. These are elements of the proposed requirements of the Crime and Policing Bill which Springfields have adopted early.421 T/S: 15/136/18-137/21. There is no requirement that the address on the photo ID and the delivery address match because they still feel the need to be able to deliver to workplaces. Instead, Mr Bullock considers it better to ensure (as per the new intended requirements of the Crime and Policing Bill) that the person to whom the item is delivered is the purchaser;

b. Since these events, to buy a machete from Springfields, the order has to be placed with the accounts department (it cannot be purchased on the company’s website), and they only sell machetes to businesses not private individuals, and with the photographic identification and selfie requirement, as above, for the person buying for the business.422 T/S: 15/135/17-136/13.

The second machete (Knife Warehouse)

109. On 3 October 2023, AR purchased a second machete from the Knife Warehouse, a trading name of Artemis Web Limited. This was a ‘Black Panther Kukri’ machete, with a 16.5 inch blade, entirely black in colour with a curved blade. It cost only £24.95. The image below shows the machete recovered from the family home:423 MERP008292/9 – Disclosed but not published due to sensitive content.

205

110. AR used the email a.megalania7@yahoo.com to place the order. He purchased this second machete using a different false identity “Olakunle Samuel […]”. As with the purchase in the name of Alice […], AR used a genuine driving licence but this time it was a licence in the name of a man called “Olakunle Samuel […]”, born in 1961 (therefore he would have been aged about 62), who lived in Uxbridge when complying with the company’s age verification process.424 The full name has again been withheld from disclosure by the Inquiry.,425 KWAW000009; MERP000392.

111. The only correspondence that the Knife Warehouse had with AR was in the form of automated emails generated from the order.426 KWAW000007; KWAW000009; KWAW000008.

112. Mr Joseph Wheeler, the Managing Director of Artemis Web Ltd who runs the day-to-day activities of the company, gave evidence to the Inquiry. The company did have an age verification policy in place at the time, which included the requirement, marked clearly, that purchasers had to be over 18, and also that purchasers could not use someone else’s identification.427 KWAW000002; see also their legal information notice at KWAW000005. Once a customer went through with the purchase of an age verified item, they were required to upload proof of identity if this was their first purchase, and the purchasing email would be blocked if they failed to provide identification.428 T/S: 15/5/11-7/15. In terms of checks that were done, the company ensured the identification looked genuine (Mr Wheeler had experience of checking specimen identifications online to help identify fakes) and that it matched the delivery name of the person making the order (which in this case it did). The machete was only shipped after the proof of age stage had been completed.429 T/S: 15/11/14-12/19.

113. Mr Wheeler accepted (with the benefit of hindsight) that their system was still open to abuse because someone could use and upload someone else’s identification, and put that as the delivery name, and that was sufficient to permit an order to be made. However, he understood the process at the time to be compliant with the law as it then stood.430 T/S: 15/13/8-14/7.

206

114. Turning to the packaging for this machete, when recovered by the police from the family home, this machete was still in its grey packaging with the original delivery label. I observe that the age verification labelling from Knife Warehouse was present but far less prominent than the labelling from Springfields. The age verification label was not prominently coloured and did not specifically refer to the item containing a bladed product, although the return address was Knife Warehouse.431 MERP008292/19 – Disclosed but not published due to sensitive content.

Given the provisions of the CJA 1988 as amended (see paragraph 85, above), while the contents were described as “1 x Mach-Panther”, I note that Knife Warehouse failed to ensure that the packaging clearly indicated that it contained an article with a blade or which was sharply pointed.432 I do not overlook the fact that the manufactures black box inside the grey packaging bore a caution on the outside, “Warning, extremely sharp” (MERP008292/4 – Disclosed but not published due to sensitive content). However, this is beside the point. To be effective, the bladed article warning needs to be on the outside delivery packaging. Mr Wheeler said that he was aware of the legal obligation to have labelling showing that the item was a bladed article and that ‘DYMO’ labels were usually used, but when challenged by Counsel to the Inquiry he accepted that no label appeared to be present for this parcel:

“Q. You did not meet your legal duty in that respect, in terms of this delivery; would you agree?

“A. Well, this is the first time I’ve seen this parcel but it appears not to be on there, yes.”433 T/S: 15/26/15-18.

207

I cannot entirely rule out the possibility that an appropriate label was affixed at the time of the delivery but came off at some stage when the parcel was kept in the house or cleared by the police. But given that the parcel and packaging appear otherwise intact with the delivery label in place, I find it more likely that no label stating it was a bladed article was ever attached. As such, it was very poor practice of Knife Warehouse not to ensure that there was a clear bladed article warning on this package. As I address below, the package was received by AR’s father Alphonse R. Had Alphonse R paid proper attention to the package, he would have been put on notice that it was likely to be an inappropriate item for AR to possess. But a clear warning that the parcel contained a bladed item such as that used by Springfields would have made this immediately obvious. As a result, Alphonse R intercepted (and hid) the first machete but did not intercept the second machete. This was principally the fault of Alphonse R but Knife Warehouse contributed to it by inadequate labelling.

115. Knife Warehouse used an age verified delivery service from Royal Mail. The machete was delivered on 6 October 2023 at 15:12 in the afternoon.434 RMG000002. Royal Mail provided evidence from Mr Ricky McAulay, their UK Operations Director.435 Witness Statement of Mr McAulay RMG000016. The delivery driver was mandated to request identification if the parcel was to be handed to someone who appeared to be under the age of 25.436 RMG000010/4-6. On the evidence provided to the Inquiry, it is overwhelmingly likely that this parcel was handed to AR’s father. The recipient’s year of birth was entered as 1975 which is Alphonse R’s year of birth. It is exceptionally unlikely that the delivery driver would have accepted a year of birth of 1975 (that is someone aged in their late 40s) if AR, then aged 16, had answered the door. Moreover, the delivery driver states that the door to 10 Old School Close was answered by a black, middle-aged man, of slight build with short, cropped hair.437 Witness Statement of Mr McAulay RMG000016/§11(e). While not exactly matching Alphonse R, that is broadly consistent with it having been Alphonse R who took delivery. It is also totally inconsistent with it being any of the other occupants of the house, whether AR himself who was 16, Dion R who was a wheelchair user and only a few years older, or AR’s mother. Alphonse R accepted that it is more likely that it was he who took the delivery, although he suggested he could not completely rule out that it was AR.

116. I have no hesitation in finding that Alphonse R accepted this parcel. This particular weapon was not specifically noted by Merseyside Police during the initial search of the house. It was identified after AR’s prosecution among the contents of the house that had been cleared.438 Second Witness Statement of DCI Pye MERP008308/§§4-5. The police were therefore unable to be specific about where in the house it was found. It is unlikely to have been in AR’s bedroom which was the subject of meticulous searching. On his own evidence, Alphonse R only intercepted and hid one machete (the Springfields machete, as addressed above). As I have indicated, this was still in its original packaging. I find that Alphonse R took delivery of this parcel at the door and then probably left it lying somewhere in the house among other delivery parcels. One of the images taken by Merseyside Police during the house search shows a parcel, which is entirely consistent with the Knife Warehouse parcel, lying among other post and parcels.439 MERP007784/15. AR could therefore easily have accessed this machete had he wanted to. I return to Alphonse R’s responsibility for this in Chapter 12: AR’s family.

208

117. Returning to Knife Warehouse as a retailer and its approach to online knife sales, AR was able to order this machete because the law at the time did not require any check to be done to ensure that the purchaser matched the person whose identification document was provided. Mr Wheeler conceded that with hindsight, he should have given further consideration to why a gentleman in his 60s in Uxbridge was ordering a machete and wanting it shipped to Banks in Lancashire.440 T/S: 15/23/1-12. As I have already indicated Knife Warehouse was also at fault for not marking this item as being a bladed item.

118. However, I am also significantly concerned by the lack of responsibility shown by Knife Warehouse more generally. I reach that conclusion for three reasons.

119. First, there is the appearance and marketing of this particular machete. As I have indicated, this machete was advertised as a ‘Black Panther [Kukri] machete’ from Anglo Arms and as depicted in paragraph 109, above it was entirely black.441 MERP000486, although there was a typographical error in the webpage (‘Kurki’) – Disclosed but not published due to sensitive content. Several aspects of this are concerning. If the machete was aimed at legitimate agricultural use, it seems hard to justify the all-black appearance. Challenged by Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr Wheeler had to accept that the appearance of the machete was redundant and that it looked “sinister”:

“Q. If a machete was being used for agricultural purposes, it wouldn’t matter what colour it was, would it?

A. No.

Q. In the real world, a black machete, a machete with an entirely black silhouette, looks more sinister.

A. I suppose so, yes.

Q. There’s no “suppose so” about it. It makes it look more like a sinister weapon; would you agree?

A. Yes.”442 T/S: 15/18/17-25.

Mr Wheeler claimed not to know that Kukri machetes were associated with the Gurkhas.

209

“Q. […]you didn’t realise that it might have a connotation with military use by a regiment best known for their bravery and fierceness?

A. No, I thought it was just the shape of the machete, or the blade, rather.”443 T/S: 15/19/15-19.

Mr Wheeler said that to him ‘Black Panther’ was just a brand name. Pressed by Counsel to the Inquiry he said he had “never thought about it at the time”:

“Q. Well, it may be the brand name but what does it suggest to you in the real world?

A. I don’t know, it’s just an animal.

Q. A friendly animal?

A. No, no.

Q. Black Panther kukri machete, with a completely black silhouette, it might be thought, is named and branded in a way to make it look as ferocious as a weapon as possible; is that fair?

A. Maybe so. I never thought about that at the time, or I didn’t think of it in that way.”444 T/S: 15/19/20-20/8.

120. Mr Wheeler had been a specialist in this trade since 2010. I found this evidence hard to believe. Mr Wheeler was either profoundly naïve and unthinking about the descriptions of items he was selling, or he knew full well that some of his merchandise was branded and sold in a way that had connotations with their use as weapons. I regret that I find the latter is by far the more likely. While I accept that Knife Warehouse are not responsible for the brand names (here ‘Black Panther Kukri machete’), they did as a company choose to stock items with such names. Mr Wheeler has sought to maintain that the blade is black as it is anodized to prevent rusting. While he maintains that it is just a colour, I cannot accept that he was unaware that the combination of the machete’s name, its colour and its design, made it more attractive as a weapon. It is not a complete answer to these criticisms, that the importation of the machetes of this kind had not been prohibited by law. A responsible retailer would have paid regard to the name, design and description of the item, in deciding whether to stock it at all and if so how to market it.

121. It is to some limited extent a credit to Knife Warehouse that they had taken some steps to start to mitigate their website’s inappropriate content. They no longer stock this item, they have reduced the size of the knives they sell, and Mr Wheeler thought that they no longer sold machetes at all, although in this respect he was mistaken.

122. Second, however, Mr Wheeler’s claim to have stopped marketing machetes was inaccurate and even at the date of his giving evidence, it still contained inappropriate marketing content. I formed the clear impression that Mr Wheeler appeared not to be on top of his own website content. Whereas he claimed to no longer sell machetes, on the morning he gave evidence, the company website still advertised, albeit it out of stock, a ‘Buckland kukri field knife machete’, which was described as a “deeply curved kukri machete from Buckland […] with a phenomenal curve angle that puts the full weight of the knife behind each cut”. This was another black-coloured machete advertised on his website with the claim that “it is non-reflective so won’t scare the fish away if you’re out on the lake!”. Asked if “the reasonable outside observer might think that it’s pretty offensive to pretend that the reason for the machete being all black is so that, if you are fishing with a black machete, you’re not going to scare the fish?”, Mr Wheeler could only say, “I don’t know to be honest”.445 T/S: 15/32/13-35/15. Mr Wheeler claimed that although it was on the website, it was not for sale. I was troubled by these answers and doubted whether they reflected a genuine change of heart on the part of Knife Warehouse to cease selling clearly dangerous weapons, particularly when advertised in a way that tended to indicate their offensive use. While Mr Wheeler seeks to maintain that these items were lawful under UK law, this overlooks his company’s responsibility for how the items were marketed on the Knife Warehouse website. In the case of the Buckland machete, the marketing included the disingenuous line that the non-reflective black colour of the machete helped avoid scaring fish away if using it while fishing on a lake.

210

123. Third, the concerning content of the Knife Warehouse website was not limited to machetes. At the time the Inquiry contacted Knife Warehouse requesting a statement, it was still selling ‘Rambo’ knives, with names such as ‘Predator’, ‘Cold Steel’, and ‘Walking Dead’. Mr Wheeler justified these on the basis of films/other media after which they were named, and that there were popular “collectables”.446 Witness Statement of Mr Wheeler KWAW000006/§52. Mr Wheeler claimed to be unaware of the connotations of “cold steel”:

“Q. But what does ‘Cold Steel’ imply when it is a knife, Mr Wheeler?

A. It’s just a brand from America.

Q. It may be a brand name but, again, to the outside observer, Cold Steel is a phrase used about things like bayonets and stabbing people, isn’t it?

A. I was not aware of that, no.

Q. Really?

A. Really, yes. Cold Steel?”447 T/S: 15/36/5-13.

211

I was unimpressed by Mr Wheeler’s evidence in this regard. Mr Wheeler relies on the fact that ‘Cold Steel’ is a major and established brand sold by many knife retailers and has continued to maintain that he was genuinely not aware of the military and weaponry connotation of the phrase ‘cold steel’. If true, again I find this both surprising and naïve for someone who has been a specialist in this trade since 2010. While Knife Warehouse did not create or choose the brand names for such items, it should have given far more consideration to whether it was appropriate to stock, and if so how to market, items whose brand names might be associated with knives and machetes being used offensively as weapons.

124. It is appropriate to recall that it is a criminal offence under the Knives Act 1997, to market a knife in a way which indicates or suggests that it is suitable for combat or is otherwise likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of the knife as a weapon.

125. The content of both the Knife Warehouse website and the Hunting and Knives website (which I address in the context of the third machete, below) is very troubling. It causes me to conclude that far too little attention has been paid by the authorities to the content of online knife and machete marketing descriptions. I am very concerned that enforcement of the existing law in this area has been inadequate.

126. The closing statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department “…acknowledges the very significant concerns that arise from the evidence the Inquiry has obtained regarding the online retail, packaging and delivery of knives and the effectiveness of the systems in place” including those designed to prevent “knife sellers from marketing knives online in a way that glamourises violence”.448 Closing Statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department HOM000212/17/§47. Mr Hunt who gave evidence on behalf of the Home Office in respect of knife policy accepted that the evidence which the Inquiry had heard was “very concerning”.449 T/S: 23/149/3-21. He has pointed to the fact that tackling such breaches will fall within the work of the new police team established in response to the Clayman review of the online sale of knives.450 HOM000160; Home Office (2025), ‘Independent end-to-end review of online knife sales’. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-end-to-end-review-of-online-knife-sales,451 T/S: 23/149/17-150/25. The closing statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department also rightly anticipates that I will have recommendations around the enforcement of sections 1 and 2 of the Knives Act 1997.452 Closing Statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department HOM000212/20/§55. I turn to those recommendations at the end of this chapter.

212

The third machete (Hunting and Knives)

127. On 14 October 2023, AR purchased a third machete from the online retailer Hunting and Knives (a trading name of Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd, a company with a registered address in London). The circumstances in which AR came to purchase and have delivered this third machete are the most concerning of all. It is no coincidence that this purchase – in which the processes were weakest – meant that the machete got into AR’s hands; it was found after the attack under AR’s bed.453 First Witness Statement of DCI Pye MERP007551/§76a. It was found in the search of AR’s home in a black holdall under the bunkbeds in AR’s bedroom with the bow and arrows. It is also, I find, no coincidence that having established that Hunting and Knives’ processes were so weak in terms of age verification for machetes, that AR’s first effort to buy a knife was from the same company.

128. The police investigation established that this machete was purchased from Hunting and Knives having obtained relevant partial emails from AR’s Lenovo tablet SMG/2. The Inquiry has been able to establish a fuller picture of the supply chain involved in the delivery of this machete. In overview:

a. Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd under their trading name Hunting and Knives sold the machete online;

b. Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd had contracted a Northern Ireland based company SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd, to deliver its products in the UK;

c. Mr Stephen Henderson of SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd also ran Ruach Music Ltd, (selling musical instruments and accessories). The delivery fulfilment business grew out of Mr Henderson’s music business for which he already had to receive and deliver online orders. Mr Henderson put the Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd delivery work through the contract that Ruach Music Ltd had with Whistl;

d. Whistl did not perform deliveries themselves, they were essentially an intermediary, offering a range of delivery suppliers, which included Evri;

e. The machete was ultimately delivered by Evri. Evri do not offer age verified delivery services.

It is of very significant concern that, in the event, the delivery of this machete had no age verification process at all, and the machete was not appropriately labelled with a warning that it was a bladed article that should be delivered to over-18-year-olds only. Within the slightly complicated supply chain set out above, the need for this to be an age verified delivery got lost. For the reasons set out below, this was principally the fault of Hunting and Knives (Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd), to which a degree of failure by Mr Henderson of SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd / Ruach Music Ltd also contributed. I find that neither Whistl nor Evri would have appreciated that the item being sent was a machete requiring age verification.

213

129. After the attack, Merseyside Police were able to make a partial recovery of the emails which passed between AR and sales@huntingandknives.co.uk (Hunting and Knives / Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd). These were exchanged in the period 28 September 2023 to 3 October 2023. Hunting and Knives have provided fuller copies of the relevant emails.454 MERP000980/8; HKAW000002; HKAW000004; HKAW000005; HKAW000006.

130. On 28 September 2023, AR asked “In order to verify my age for age restricted items, do you ask for ID online or does the courier ask for it in person?”455 HKAW000002.

131. The reply on the same day was as follows:

“Hello, we always request online verification unless it can be verified by the electoral roll and the address matches. Although sometimes delivery verification is also requested.

It is also possible to verify your identity if you send us a proof to this email. In the case of online verification, it is only necessary to do it once and your account will be verified.

Despite the exceptions contemplated by law, we always establish the minimum purchase period at 18 years or over [sic]. We hope to have helped you with your query, we remain at your disposal for any other question.”456 HKAW000003.

132. On 1 October 2023, AR asked “Does the person who receives the delivery have to be the same person on the ID or not?”457 HKAW000004. The answer from the company the following day, 2 October 2023 set out the following details:

“Hello,

Yes, the package is marked with the name of the person who must receive the package and in this type of shipments it is specified that the named person must be the one who receives the merchandise. Otherwise, the delivery person would not be doing the job well, since this aspect is what was agreed upon with the transport company.

It would be possible to schedule a delivery at a collection point if you are not going to be at home; This could be done once the tracking number is received from the transport company’s website.”458 HKAW000005.

There are two points of note concerning this reply both of which show the poor standards and knowledge of Hunting and Knives. First, the assertion that the person who receives the delivery has to be the person who made the order was nothing like the actual delivery arrangements effected by the company. Secondly, the email offered delivery to a collection point. If this was a locker-type arrangement, it would have been illegal.

214

133. On 3 October 2023, AR then asked, “What types of collection points are available?”459 HKAW000006. This query was not answered by Hunting and Knives, but it shows that AR was looking for weaknesses in the delivery options that would minimise the chances of his parents intercepting the delivery of the machete.

134. Less than 2 weeks later, on 14 October 2023 AR then proceeded to order a ‘Kukri Machete Congo 488 JKR’. An image of the machete as recovered from AR’s bedroom is below:460 MERP002936/1 – Disclosed but not published due to sensitive content.

It is of note that, like the machete sold by Knife Warehouse, this was another machete with an all-black blade and a predominantly black handle. Moreover, this machete was marketed by Hunting and Knives in a wholly inappropriate way. Their website described this machete in the following terms, “Like any good kukri machete, the Congo Kukri have 3 parts to their blade, a pointed tip for stabbing, a wide midsection for chopping, and a narrow area near the handle for whittling and carving[…]”.461 First Witness Statement of Mr Martinez HKAW000032/§12. Mr Juan Martinez, the Director of Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd, wholly unconvincingly attempted to suggest that “stabbing” meant “to pinch”, as in to “pinch a fruit” and that kukris were bought for “survival” and as a tool for work in the countryside and for working with vegetation.462 T/S: 15/85/3-88/23. The limited legitimate uses for a machete in the UK would be for agricultural/gardening clearing and similar outdoor tasks, and perhaps survival skills. As such, any responsible vendor concerned not to offend the provisions of the Knives Act 1997, ought to avoid sales descriptions of machetes associated with stabbing. I find that Mr Martinez and Hunting and Knives took no such care in the marketing language associated with this machete.

135. This was not a one off. When the Inquiry issued its Rule 9 witness statement request to Hunting and Knives, it had a link to a blog on machetes where the blog included the statement, “A machete is a cutting tool, also used as a weapon somewhat shorter than a sword”. Upon this being pointed out in the Inquiry’s statement request, it seems that the link to this blog was deactivated by Hunting and Knives.463 First Witness Statement of Mr Martinez HKAW000032/§67. Even by the time that Mr Martinez gave his oral evidence to the Inquiry, the Hunting and Knives website was advertising a ‘Muela Magnum-26 Bowie deer stag knife’, described as “useful as a stabbing weapon, as well as a cutting tool”.464 ILT000049. Again, it is important to recall the offence under section 1 of the Knives Act 1997, which makes it an offence to market a knife in a way which indicates or suggests that it is suitable for combat or is otherwise likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of the knife as a weapon. Mr Martinez accepted this description was grossly inappropriate.465 T/S: 15/100/5-102/12. He suggested that it could be used for hunting deer or other animals, notwithstanding the fact that it is unlawful in the United Kingdom to hunt deer with knives. I note that even at the time of my drafting of this report and having made concessions at the hearings that the website content was inappropriate, Hunting and Knives have not reviewed their website to remove inappropriate marketing. They had for sale a ‘ka-bar bk9 Bowie’ knife for sale described as “combat-ready”.466 Hunting and Knives (2025), ‘KA-BAR Becker BK9 Combat Bowie’. Available at: www.huntingandknives.co.uk/ka-bar-becker-bk9-bowie.html (last accessed 30 November 2025). I am also concerned at Hunting and Knives’ extensive practice of marketing knives as “tactical” given the association with military use and therefore combat.467 T/S: 15/51/23-53/13.

215

136. I have set out the terms of the Knives Act 1997. By virtue of section 2(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005, it is not for me to rule on or determine any question of criminal liability. However, by virtue of section 2(2) of the Act, I am not to be inhibited in the discharge of my functions by any likelihood of liability being inferred from facts that are determined or recommendations that are made. I find as a fact that Hunting and Knives was routinely marketing (and to some extent continues to market) knives online in a way which is inappropriate and irresponsible, with references to knives/machetes as weapons, their utility for stabbing, and with reference to combat. This same finding leads to the very significant concern about the poor enforcement of the provisions of the Knives Act 1997 as regards online retailers, including Hunting and Knives.

137. Returning to the order which AR placed for this third machete, AR was able to make this order because he once again used the driving licence of the 62-year-old “Olakunle Samuel […]”, living in Uxbridge. I am more critical of Hunting and Knives for accepting this order than for the orders placed with Springfields and Knife Warehouse. That is because the range of emails sent to Hunting and Knives was more extensive (as set out above). This should have alerted Hunting and Knives to the strong possibility that this was a minor seeking to place an order. When the order was then made with an ID for a 62-year-old man in Uxbridge but a delivery address in Lancashire, Hunting and Knives should have viewed this as extremely suspicious, given the circumstances of a 62-year-old having enquired about age verification requirements with such persistence. However, Hunting and Knives failed to spot this and instead proceeded to allow the order to be made.

216

138. The machete was then delivered to 10 Old School Close on 26 October 2023 by the delivery company Evri, who do not undertake age verified deliveries. No age verification was required on delivery.

139. The Inquiry obtained witness statements and called oral evidence from an appropriately senior member of each element of the supply chain for the delivery of this machete in order to investigate how it could be that such a dangerous bladed item ended up being delivered without the age verified delivery. Those witnesses were as follows:

a. Hunting and Knives / Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd: their Director, Mr Martinez;468 First Witness Statement of Mr Martinez HKAW000032; Second Witness Statement of Mr Martinez HKAW000033; T/S: 15/39/2-103/10.

b. SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd and Ruach Music Ltd: the Director and CEO, Mr Henderson;469 Witness Statement of Mr Henderson RUAM000003; T/S: 16/152/16-202/6.

c. Whistl Group: their Chief Operating Officer Mr Nigel Polglass;470 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009; T/S: 16/109/7-152/8.

d. Evri Limited: their Chief Customer Officer Mr Christopher Ashworth.471 Witness Statement of Mr Ashworth EVRI000002; T/S: 16/70/25-109/2.

140. I find the following factual matters established in terms of the relevant supply chain for Hunting and Knives orders in the relevant period.

141. On 21 February 2022, Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd entered into a contract with SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd for distribution of its orders.472 HKAW000034. This followed a short period of pre-contractual exchanges earlier that month. This contract was effectively for what is termed “dropship” products, which is to say that SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd were to forward the goods on to the end customer rather than store them for later dispatch.473 Witness Statement of Mr Henderson RUAM000003/§9. The contractual terms included that SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd would not accept:

“2.12.1 goods which are, or may become, dangerous, hazardous, noxious, explosive, radioactive or damaging to itself or other property;

2.12.2 firearms, living organisms, cash, frozen or perishable food;

2.12.3 goods prohibited by law or regulation of any government or public authority of any jurisdiction where the goods are carried;

12.12.4 goods which SJ Henderson deems unsafe or not in a suitable condition for storage or packing or otherwise unsuitable for the Services offered by SJ Henderson;

217

2.12.5 goods tendered by Client which do not conform to the description or specification as provided in an Order or otherwise agreed by SJ Henderson;

2.12.6 goods on which Client has not paid all applicable duties, levies, taxes or other similar governmental or statutory requirement in connection with the import, export and/or delivery of such goods.”474 HKAW000034/3/§2.12.

142. The obligations on Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd included that it warranted and agreed that:

“3.1.2. all goods are appropriately marked and packed for storage and handling by SJ Henderson.”

And that Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd as the client would:

“3.1.6 comply will [sic] all laws and regulations affecting manufacture, sale, packaging and labelling of its goods.”475 HKAW000034/3/§3.1.2, 4/§3.1.6.

143. Under this contract, Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd pre-packed their items for distribution by SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd. It would appear that Hunting and Knives bought large quantities of knives and other items from Grupo Marpasi S.L. in Spain which were sent directly to SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd, packaged and labelled for delivery to the customer (including the name, address, postcode and country). SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd would then add an additional shipping label. Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd would choose, from a range of providers, which courier service they would wish to be used when submitting an order with SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd, but it was Mr Henderson (in fact through Ruach Music) who contracted with the onward courier companies.476 Witness Statement of Mr Henderson RUAM000003/§38(iii) and (viii).

144. In making this arrangement with SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd, I find that Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd (and Mr Martinez personally) were responsible for a wholesale failure to have proper regard for their duties not to sell prohibited items to those under 18 and to ensure that bladed items were packaged in accordance with the UK legislation. This was most pronounced in two fundamental respects in that they did not:

a. Require SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd to ensure that the items were sent by age verified delivery;

b. Package and label the items clearly indicating that it contained an article with a blade, or an item which was sharply pointed, and that when delivered it should only be handed to a person aged 18 or over.

218

145. These were the direct obligations on Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd (Hunting and Knives). If they chose (as they did) to deliver machetes and knives through a third party, it was their obligation to ensure that the arrangement they made with that third party required these steps to be taken. They did not do so. They acted entirely irresponsibly and in breach of their obligations. My conclusions in this regard are re-enforced by the fact that Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd made a positive requirement that the deliveries were tracking enabled (thus they specified aspects of the delivery type) but made no mention of any age verification requirements. Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd went so far as to tell Mr Henderson, “These packages could be sent already packed and labelled so that you only have to include the label of the transport agency) and from your warehouse they would be sent to the final clients”.477 RUAM000005/1, 3 (emails of 8 February 2022 and 17 February 2022).

146. Mr Martinez accepted that he had not mentioned the involvement of SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd in his original witness statement; he claimed this was because he just responded to questions directly asked by the Inquiry.478 T/S: 15/63/11-25. Mr Martinez claimed that he had had a video call with SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd during which he had indicated that a label needed to be added, as appropriate, with the ‘18+’ delivery warning.479 T/S: 15/50/14-51/22, T/S: 15/64/10-69/15. He claimed he gave this as a clear instruction. There is no record of this alleged meeting, and I did not accept this evidence from Mr Martinez as truthful. Mr Henderson denied that any such instruction was given during a video call. I accept Mr Henderson’s evidence on this point. While I am critical of some aspects of Mr Henderson’s conduct under this contract, he was doing his best to give honest and accurate evidence to the Inquiry in a co-operative way. I find it impossible to accept that he would have ignored a clear indication that the packages were knives, needed age verified delivery and 18+ bladed items labelling.480 T/S: 16/167/21-168/12. I conclude that the factual position is that Mr Martinez took no steps to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom legislation as regards the supply of knives to those under 18.

147. This serious failure is aggravated by the scale of the breach. Hunting and Knives on its own evidence has shipped 2,811 packages to the United Kingdom via SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd, “99.9%” of which were knives or machetes.481 T/S: 15/74/17-75/25. It is overwhelmingly likely that none of them have been subject to delivery utilising age verification. This is self-evidently deeply troubling. Mr Martinez in his written statement to the Inquiry maintained that he could not have carried out his role more efficiently.482 First Witness Statement of Mr Martinez HKAW000032/§43. In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, he was belatedly forced to accept, more realistically, he had fallen “woefully short” of his duties.483 T/S: 15/77/3-78/3.

219

148. I deal with my recommendations in this area at the conclusion of this chapter. I note here, however, that my findings of fact as to the nature and extent of the failures of Hunting and Knives / Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd and Mr Martinez are such that my recommendations include that there should be a police-led investigation as to whether they have committed one or more criminal offences, with appropriate input from the Crown Prosecution Service. Since Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd is registered in London, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis would appear to be the relevant chief officer of police.

149. Consistent with the concerningly lax approach taken by Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd / Hunting and Knives to their labelling of imported articles, I note that SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd ended their shipping arrangements with Hunting and Knives when the Irish Customs intercepted a quantity of knives and a pepper-box revolver (a historical firearms replica) in a consignment labelled “cutlery items”.484 Witness Statement of Mr Henderson RUAM000003/§§24-25; RUAM000010; RUAM000011; RUAM000012. I found Mr Martinez’s attempts to explain this as unconvincing as many other aspects of his evidence.485 T/S: 15/96/7-98/1.

150. I turn to consider the position of Mr Henderson and his two companies SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd and Ruach Music Ltd. For the reasons I have detailed above, I have no doubt that the principal failures for the breach of age verification and labelling requirements were those of Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd / Hunting and Knives. Mr Henderson was notified of the Inquiry’s interest very late in the day because his involvement had not hitherto been apparent. Within a matter of a week or so, he had produced a detailed statement, relevant disclosure and flown from Northern Ireland to give evidence. His co-operation was therefore impressive, and I accept he gave evidence honestly. However, Mr Henderson through his companies ought to have acted with more care and circumspection. I reach that conclusion for three reasons.

151. First, as a preliminary matter, the contractual terms I have outlined above, at paragraph 141, excluded dangerous goods or goods prohibited by law in any jurisdiction where the goods are carried, but they did not explicitly exclude knives and machetes. Mr Henderson agreed that the terms of the agreement were ambiguous so far as knives were concerned.486 T/S: 16/164/14-167/16.

152. Second, Mr Henderson had not informed himself about the UK legal requirements so far as the sale and delivery of knives was concerned. He thought that his company did not “perform” the sale of knives and they relied on their clients to apply appropriate labelling. But the fact remains that Mr Henderson was simply unaware of the labelling requirements or age verification delivery requirements for bladed items.487 T/S: 16/156/3-160/13. That may have been acceptable if SJ Henderson’s contractual terms expressly and clearly prohibited the delivery of knives, but the terms were not so expressly clear.

220

153. Third, Mr Henderson asserted that it was not until 2025 with the Irish customs find that he realised that Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd had been sending knives and machetes through his company.488 T/S: 16/169/11-24. I can and do accept the honesty of this answer. However, had he been acting more diligently and carefully, Mr Henderson would have realised this in the pre-contractual and early contractual period of his dealings with Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd. That is so because:

a. In a pre-contractual questionnaire, in answer to a question about “What are the commodities / products”, Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd answered, “Outdoor suplies [sic], we are specialized in knives”. And in answer to a question about their e-commerce platforms, Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd gave their e-commerce platform address as huntingandknives.co.uk.489 HKAW000035. Mr Henderson said that the significance of this was not acknowledged at the time and he was shocked to read that email in the investigation he had conducted into what had happened. He accepted that this was a very clear missed opportunity to understand that Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd were a knife seller and that in hindsight he should have asked more questions;490 T/S: 16/169/25-174/12.

b. In March 2022, an early consignment from Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd (though this was not the case for all the later consignments) did have content descriptions and all bar one of the items was a bladed article.491 RUAM000006. I accept Mr Henderson’s evidence that this was data on the system that, because of the dropship nature of the process, did not have to be interrogated or reviewed. If the questionnaire had been properly considered, however, this early consignment description could have been used to check what Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd were in fact shipping.492 T/S: 16/174/13-177/5. Although they would have been one set of data among thousands of orders, the associated images on the SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd portal for these items showed that they were knives;493 HKAW000038; T/S: 16/177/6-179/8.

c. In terms of labels, while Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd failed to attach labels marking the parcels as containing bladed articles that were for 18+ delivery only, Ageo did send the parcels (at the very least for the first assignment) with delivery information labels applied that had a reasonably prominent ‘HK’ logo on them with the words “Hunting & Knives” clearly visible underneath.494 RUAM000008. Although Mr Henderson is right to note that the contractual dealings were through Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd, and he suggests that the label image came to him in an email where the wording on the labels would not have been very prominent, this was another missed opportunity for Mr Henderson and those handling the parcels to spot the likelihood that they contained knives.

221

154. Realistically, and consistent with the above, Mr Henderson regretted not doing more, being more curious and asking more questions.495 T/S: 16/181/20-22. He accepted, also, that it was a very serious matter that over 2,500 packages had been sent by Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd through his firm, all of which should have been age verified and had warning labelling.496 T/S: 16/182/10-15.

155. I should record that Mr Henderson, at short notice, had determined in the week before he gave evidence that the dropship arrangement was a vulnerability in his systems and he had already emailed his customers to require in future that all orders, including those sent through the dropship rather than warehousing option, required product details to be provided.497 T/S: 16/164/1-9; RUAM000017. This was reflective of a pro-active approach by a company that was taking the issues raised in the Inquiry seriously. However, my conclusion remains that Mr Henderson ought to have acted with more care and circumspection in his dealings with Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd. Had he done so, he would have realised they were dealing in knives and machetes and either terminated the relationship or informed himself about the requirements for delivery of bladed articles. That may well have prevented this particular machete from being delivered to AR.

156. I can deal with the position of Whistl and Evri more briefly. As regards Whistl, they are a parcel management company who act effectively as a very large-scale intermediary for businesses in the parcel logistics trade. They link parcel senders (such as online retailers and other fulfilment companies) with companies (like Evri) who effect the actual delivery.498 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§§5-6. The large number of parcels with which they deal means that they can obtain cheaper prices from the delivery companies than the sellers/senders could negotiate separately. Their services also include software that effectively acts as a bridge between the seller’s order management system and the carrier’s management systems so that the parcels can be labelled, sent and tracked efficiently, in a highly automated way.499 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§34a; T/S: 16/114/12-116/12.

157. There is a minor technical dispute (which it is not necessary for me to resolve) about the contractual terms between Whistl and Evri. Whatever the position as regards the relevant version of that contract, Mr Polglass of Whistl accepted that Whistl had long been aware that Evri did not accept age restricted items,500 T/S: 16/132/18-133/12. and it was Mr Polglass’s evidence that this information was made known to Whistl’s customers, although he thought this could be further improved with more frequent reminders.501 T/S: 16/135/10-137/3; First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§12. In a follow up statement Mr Polglass has informed the Inquiry that communications have gone out to all Whistl customers reminding them of their obligations relating to dangerous, prohibited and restricted items; the presentation of associated information is being reviewed and reminders will now be sent out every 6 months: Second Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000019/§§2-5. Evri had made clear to Whistl that it did not wish to engage in the delivery of age verified articles covered by the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.502 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§15. From Whistl’s point of view, it was its customer’s obligation to choose the appropriate delivery option for the type of parcel being sent. As such, an online seller of knives ought to choose an age verified delivery option and ensure its products were appropriately packaged.503 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§14.

222

158. Whistl’s relevant contract was with Ruach Music Ltd and was signed in January 2021.504 WHI000004. Whistl’s account was that they only learnt in the context of this Inquiry that Ruach Music Ltd shared premises with SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd.505 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§19. Mr Henderson did not agree with this and pointed to the fact that a proposal from Whistl was sent to the SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd email and he considers it was apparent that SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd’s orders would be put through the Ruach Music Ltd account.506 Witness Statement of Mr Henderson RUAM000003/§31. Subsequent disclosure from Mr Henderson tends to confirm his account in this regard, although this difference between Whistl and Mr Henderson is of only marginal relevance.507 RUAM000019. The contract gave Ruach Music Ltd options to send parcels with Evri (then called Hermes), Royal Mail or Yodel.508 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§22. There was a customer guidance and carrier guide with sections on prohibited items, dangerous goods and restricted items.509 WHI000005; WHI000006. The effect was to make the customer (here Ruach Music Ltd) responsible for ensuring that it follows any requirements relating to these types of goods. There was a link to Evri’s website in which it was made clear that Evri did not carry knives. For the Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd orders, Evri was chosen as the carrier for delivery for nearly all of the over 2,500 orders, with one shipment being sent through Yodel.510 First Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000009/§31.

159. Mr Polglass said that Whistl do accept shipments of kitchen knives, but not of weapons. He accepted that there was a degree of judgement in this, but he said that Whistl would never have accepted a contract that involved the shipment of machetes.511 T/S: 16/121/8-122/17.

223

160. Mr Polglass also accepted that the content information for the early shipment from Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd (showing that nearly all the items were knives) would “Quite probably” have come to Whistl. However, he explained – and I accept – that for Whistl this would have simply been data on their internal systems which did not need to be interrogated and there would have been no need for this to be scrutinised in the ordinary course of business. In this sense, the data was in their hands but there was no reason for it to be reviewed.512 T/S: 16/125/13-128/18.

161. As regards Evri, they are a large-scale UK parcel logistics and “final mile” delivery service company. Mr Ashworth explained (and I accept) that Evri had no knowledge or means of knowing that the parcel containing the third machete contained a bladed item, nor that it came from “Hunting and Knives”. Their information provided by Whistl did not include specific parcel contents.513 Witness Statement of Mr Ashworth EVRI000002/§§8-9. As noted above, before the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 came into force, Evri made clear to Whistl that it had not developed a delivery product for age verified items under the Act.514 Witness Statement of Mr Ashworth EVRI000002/§10. Mr Ashworth explained that it was well known in the industry of online retailers that Evri does not serve the bladed articles / OWA 2019 market.515 Witness Statement of Mr Ashworth EVRI000002/§7. In his oral evidence, Mr Ashworth explained that this was for two reasons. First, because morally, such items did not sit comfortably with the Evri board. Second, the Evri delivery model emphasises speed and Mr Ashworth said they could not be confident that couriers would not rely on a customer agreement about safe places for delivery or similar and end up, as I understood his evidence, delivering a bladed item where it could be picked up by someone who was not the intended recipient including someone underage. Mr Ashworth explained succinctly, “I didn’t want any blades in our network”; and their refusal to take bladed items was very widely publicised and in their standard terms.516 T/S: 16/74/9-76/5; Witness Statement of Mr Ashworth EVRI000002/§12. Mr Ashworth explained that the delivery method chosen for the Ageo Wholesale UK Ltd parcel was one of their cheapest delivery options; a loosely wrapped item that is possible to be delivered through the letterbox or left with a customer if it did not fit through the letter box; with proof of delivery in the form of a photograph.517 T/S: 16/78/1-6. As I understand it, this machete could, therefore, have been left on the doorstep/porch etc. with a photograph taken as proof of delivery.

162. Evri had no relationship with Ruach Music Ltd and would not have known who the ultimate seller had been; the content information in the first assignment (available to SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd and Whistl) did not get sent on to Evri.518 T/S: 16/79/23-83/22. Mr Ashworth accepted that the machete parcel was in fact delivered by Evri, as established by the data retained by Whistl showing delivery at 09:51 on 26 October 2023, but Evri’s data retention period of 13 months meant they no longer themselves retained information on the delivery.519 T/S: 16/88/3-89/9; Witness Statement of Mr Ashworth EVRI000002/§16.

224

163. In the circumstances set out above, I find that neither Whistl nor Evri were at fault in the delivery of the third machete. I am, however, concerned at the potential for confusion when multiple companies are involved in the supply and delivery process, as in this instance: Grupo Marpasi S.L, Hunting and Knives, SJ Henderson Fulfilment Ltd / Ruach Music Ltd, Whistl and Evri.

164. In this regard, one aspect that arose from the evidence of both Mr Ashworth and Mr Polglass was the potential for the use of technology to provide further assurance regarding parcel content. There were two aspects to this:

a. There is potential for AI to be used to scan the (very large scale) parcel content information passing through large scale parcel logistics firms and for this to be used to check if items described as knives (or similar) are matched to age verified deliveries;520 T/S: 16/85/11-87/20, T/S: 16/99/19-101/17, T/S: 16/128/24-129/10; see further the Second Witness Statement of Mr Polglass WHI000019/§§15-17.

b. While it would involve a more substantial change, if domestic parcel contents had to be given the same product harmonisation codes that are used for international parcel deliveries, that information could be used to check that the parcel delivery method was appropriate (in particular whether it should be age verified). While a final mile service like Evri could easily use such information, the changes for the supply chain higher up would be much more substantial and such a system would have a significant lead-in time.521 T/S: 16/103/18-108/15.

I return to this in my recommendations at the end of this chapter.

Newsletter · From the archives