Tory manifesto will open door to ECHR exit

The Tory manifesto will open the door to the possibility of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by vowing to put the security of the UK’s borders ahead of membership of a foreign court.

Rishi Sunak will make clear that a future Conservative government would not let the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interfere with its plans to detain illegal migrants and deport them to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed there.

The Government has already taken powers in the Safety of Rwanda Act to ignore injunctions known as rule 39 orders, which the Strasbourg court has previously used to block the first deportation flight to Rwanda in June 2022.

The manifesto will go further by stating that the Government would choose securing the UK borders ahead of membership of the ECHR, but it is not expected to make an explicit threat to leave the convention.

“Ultimately if it became a choice of one or the other, we would choose security of our borders,” said a source.

It is understood that the Prime Minister has resisted calls from senior MPs on the Right of the party to commit to leaving the ECHR in the manifesto or to holding a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of it.

Such a move would have had the potential to split the party, with parliamentary candidates including Cabinet ministers such as Alex Chalk, the Justice Secretary, and Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, likely to distance themselves from such moves if confronted on the campaign trail.

While the overall population is against leaving the ECHR by a two to one majority (55 per cent to 23 per cent), there is a majority in favour of quitting among Conservative voters (44 per cent for, to 35 per cent against), according to YouGov.

The manifesto is also expected to demand reform of the ECHR with ministers pointing to growing pressure for changes from at least 19 European countries to cope with the threats from mass migration. Some are looking to adopt third-country offshore processing for asylum seekers, similar to the UK’s Rwanda scheme.

Tory sources said the relationship with the ECtHR was like a “chess game” where the Government needed to be “clear and firm” it would not let it interfere with flights and would put border security ahead of a foreign court.

“We don’t need to say more than that. It’s hypothetical. We don’t know if they would intervene,” said a source.

Mr Sunak indicated the position the Tories were likely to take during the first TV debate with Sir Keir Starmer when he was asked if he would take Britain out of the ECHR if the ECtHR blocked Rwanda flights.

“I have been crystal clear. I will choose our country’s security ahead of membership of a foreign court every single time,” he said.

The Tories believe it creates a clear dividing line with Sir Keir Starmer, who has pledged to scrap the Rwanda scheme from day one of a Labour government and said he would not pull the UK out of international agreements.

“I want the UK to be a respected player on the global stage, not a pariah who doesn’t agree with international laws,” said Sir Keir, a former head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The manifesto will be unveiled on Tuesday just as the ECtHR issues a ruling that could force the UK Government to pay millions of pounds of compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice.

It will determine whether ministers can refuse to pay out compensation in the majority of cases where people have been wrongly accused of crimes. Under current legislation, a victim of a miscarriage of justice has to show that the new evidence clearing them of the crime proves “beyond reasonable doubt” that they did not commit it.

However, two men, who were cleared of their crimes after new evidence came to light, have taken the Government to the ECtHR after being denied compensation on the grounds that it did not prove their innocence “beyond reasonable doubt”.

They claim that the refusal to compensate them for the combined 24 years they spent in jail is a breach of the ECHR’s article six which says that “everyone charged with a  criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law”.

Since they have been cleared of guilt, they argue that they are innocent and should not be required to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.