Yes, there are private company plans to erect new data centres within the Liverpool City Region, including the Wirral. Liverpool City Region Data Centres (LCRDC), a company founded by Matt Wilson and part of Baltic Broadband, is actively expanding its network of small-scale data centres across Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens, Halton, and the Wirral. This expansion includes multiple micro and edge data centres designed to support 5G applications, media streaming, driverless cars, drone deliveries, and the Internet of Things by placing infrastructure deep within communities.
Specifically, LCRDC has launched several facilities, including the Liverpool City Queen’s Data Centre in the Baltic Triangle , the Liverpool One Micro Data Centre in the city centre , and the Liverpool City Castle Micro Data Centre located in the former moat of Liverpool Castle. Another micro data centre is planned near Crosby, and a new facility is under construction at the Wallasey Water Tower, which is expected to launch in Q4 2025. These developments are part of a broader strategy to provide edge and micro colocation services across the region, including the Wirral.
Additionally, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority has been working on initiatives like the LCR Connect network to improve digital connectivity, which supports the growth of such infrastructure. While the region is seeing significant private investment in data centres, the expansion is driven by both private enterprise and public-private partnerships aimed at enhancing the region’s digital infrastructure
I am writing to you in your capacity as Lord Chancellor to raise what I believe to be one of the most serious constitutional failures of the last two decades — the misuse and abuse of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
My own case, Dransfield v ICO (GIA/3037/2011), was labelled a “test case” and used to redefine the meaning of vexatious. What should have been a narrow exemption to prevent truly abusive requests has been weaponised to suppress legitimate public scrutiny.
Since that ruling, public authorities — often with the ICO’s blessing — have:Used Section 14(1) as a catch-all to block uncomfortable questions, imposed blanket bans under Section 50(2)(c) without meaningful oversight,i gnored Parliament’s original intent for FOIA to empower citizens, not insulate the state, extended the precedent far beyond its factual basis, creating a de facto censorship regime. This isn’t theory — it’s fact. The Dransfield precedent is now relied upon by government departments, local authorities, police forces, royal estates, and regulators. It has become a legal shield for secrecy.
For over 15 years, my FOI requests have been treated as “test cases” in every court: First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. At each level, the judiciary has permitted the expansion of this precedent without democratic mandate, creating a constitutional imbalance where citizens’ rights are subordinated to bureaucratic convenience.
The implications are profound:
Parliament’s legislative intent has been overturned by judicial interpretation.Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights are being trampled.
Oversight is weak, and accountability has collapsed. As Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, you are in a unique position to act where others have looked away. I urge you to:Launch or support an independent review into the use and misuse of Section 14(1) FOIA and the Dransfield precedent.Require the ICO and all government departments to publish data on vexatious refusals since 2012.
Place the issue before PACAC and the Justice Committee for formal scrutiny. Recognise this matter as a constitutional test of transparency, democracy, and trust in government.
This is not simply my fight — it affects every citizen who dares to ask questions of power. FOI is being strangled by a single flawed test case, and history will judge those who looked away.
I look forward to your response and to seeing genuine action taken to restore the rights Parliament intended.
Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows a public authority to refuse a request it deems “vexatious.”
Originally intended as a narrow procedural safeguard to prevent abusive or frivolous requests, it has been expanded — in practice — into a systemic tool of exclusion against campaigners, journalists, whistleblowers, and public-interest requesters.
2. Legal Foundations Undermined
A. Fraud Unravels All — Lord Denning (Lazarus Estates v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702)“No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”
When Section 14(1) is applied:knowingly to suppress information,to disguise wrongdoing, or to impose blanket bans without legal basis,the exemption becomes an instrument of deception. Any decision built upon it is liable to be void ab initio under Denning’s principle.
B. Wednesbury Unreasonableness — Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223A decision is unlawful if it:
is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it,relies on irrelevant considerations or ignores relevant ones,is made in bad faith or for improper purposes.
Section 14(1) refusals often:
lack proper evidence or reasoning, rely on post-request behaviour or unfounded assumptions, ignore the serious purpose and public interest of the request. Such decisions are Wednesbury unreasonable and therefore ultra vires — beyond the legal power of the decision-maker.
3. Systemic Abuse by ICO and FOI Tribunals
Blanket vexatious bans imposed on individuals. ICO acting simultaneously as investigator and defender of its own decisions.Tribunal rubber-stamping without rigorous Wednesbury analysis. Failure to recognise Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) ECHR safeguards. Suppression of public-interest information on infrastructure, safety, environment, and governance.
4. Legal Consequences
Decisions obtained by fraud, bad faith, or irrationality are void, not merely voidable. This pierces the usual finality of judgments (res judicata). Parliament, the courts, and oversight bodies must revisit test cases (e.g. Dransfield v ICO) where these defects are present. Systemic misuse of Section 14(1) may amount to misfeasance in public office and obstruction of justice.
5. Call to Action
Parliament must hold a public inquiry into misuse of Section 14(1) FOIA. Courts must revisit key precedents tainted by Denning/Wednesbury breaches.
ICO must be held accountable for acting beyond its statutory powers. Campaigners and whistleblowers must have their rights restored and their cases re-examined.
📌 “Fraud unravels all. Where bad faith infects a legal process, no exemption, no decision, and no precedent can stand.”
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception
From Paul Cardin, a Falklands Conflict veteran. This is a biting commentary, told from the heart. Also included is a 1982 diary, written on location. This book forms a forensic inquiry into several conflict-related mysteries that have never been addressed or resolved - even after 40 years.
Wirral In It Together 