Speaking ahead of his address at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, Mr Jenrick claimed the dossier exposed a “hidden network” of “activist judges subverting the independence of the judiciary”. The news emerges as Jenrick issues verdict on Tory-Reform pact in next election.

Tories plotting radical overhaul of judicial system

He will announce that a future Tory government would push through reforms allowing judges caught campaigning for open borders to be automatically sacked, as well as handing back the responsibility for appointing judges to the Government via the Lord Chancellor.

He will also reveal that a judicial register of interests would be set up, and that the Sentencing Council would be scrapped following controversy over its “two-tier justice” guidelines, with its powers also shifted to the Lord Chancellor.

Mr Jenrick told The Telegraph: “While we may have some of the best lawyers, barristers and judges in the world, it is now beyond any doubt that a deep rot has infected parts of our judiciary.

“This will come as little surprise to the public, who have been subjected to absurd immigration judgments that work against their interests and risk their safety. We will only restore confidence in the independence of the judiciary through wholesale changes to the way it operates.

“Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an essential first step. But there is no point removing activist judges abroad only to be stuck with their friends here. We need root-and-branch changes. Tinkering is not enough – we need to fundamentally change how judges are appointed and removed.”

Plans would hand power back to ministers

Under his proposals the body currently responsible for appointing judges, the Judicial Appointments Commission, would be abolished, with the responsibility handed back to the Lord Chancellor, backed by a new judicial vetting committee.

The current Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) would be reformed to give it powers to investigate “inappropriate” conduct by judges, including a new duty to remove any who engaged in “political activism”.

He also revealed he would establish a judicial register of interests similar to Parliament’s register for MPs and Lords to record any potential conflicts of interests, ban the use of judicial status for commercial gain and require the naming of all part-time judges to ensure greater transparency.

Asylum appeals surge as migrants overturn Home Office

His announcement comes amid a doubling in the number of appeals by asylum seekers to more than 50,000, with nearly half of migrants initially rejected by the Home Office successfully challenging the refusal of their claim – often by using the ECHR to say removal would compromise their human rights. An average of 180 foreign criminals a year have been allowed to stay after appealing on such grounds.

Both the Tories and Reform have committed to quitting the ECHR to make it easier to deport illegal migrants, while Labour is planning to curb the way courts apply the treaty to boost removals but have rejected calls to disapply or leave the convention.

Mr Jenrick’s research identified 35 judges who, before becoming judges, advised or acted pro bono for pro-migrant groups such as Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), which campaigned against the Tories‘ Rwanda scheme, and Asylum Support Appeals Project (ASAP), which backs challenges against Home Office refusals of support.

Judges reported over social media posts

Mr Jenrick said he had reported 11 full or part-time judges to the JCIO to investigate whether they had breached social media guidelines with allegedly “activist” content they have posted online.

He said: “It’s time for transparency and reform so that the public can have confidence that judges are truly independent. If judges want to step into the political arena, they should stand for political office.”

Mr Jenrick cited the cases of sitting judges who have publicly on social media backed the court defeat of the Rwanda scheme or promoted legal services companies with which they are associated.

Under Mr Jenrick’s reforms, a judicial vetting committee would advise the Lord Chancellor on the neutrality of proposed judges. The beefed-up JCIO would have the power to dismiss junior judges such as those sitting in the immigration tribunal.

Parliament could get power to sack senior judges

For more senior judges, the JCIO would have the power to recommend to the Lord Chancellor that a motion of censure be laid in Parliament. Parliament would have the ultimate power to sack these judges.

Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, has criticised the “increasing and increasingly unacceptable sensationalist and inaccurate abuse” of judges which had resulted in some facing “grave threats and intimidation both inside and outside the courtroom, both online and in the physical world.”

Judicial chiefs hit back at attacks

A judicial office spokesman said: “Judicial independence and impartiality are fundamental to the rule of law. Upon taking office, judges take the judicial oath where they swear to act ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill will’. In each case, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented to them and apply the law as it stands.

“Judges can be called to rule on topics that are politically charged, but this does not mean that in providing their rulings they are acting politically. They apply the law as it stands and as set by Parliament. Changing the law is not a matter for the judiciary.

“Judges in the immigration tribunals come from all backgrounds, including as government lawyers and it is common for them to have previously acted on both sides of cases. Should there be anything in a judge’s background or professional activities that gives rise to actual or a real appearance of bias then they must recuse themselves – this is an established convention.”

Labour accuses Jenrick of putting judges at risk

A Labour source said: “Robert Jenrick must know that attacking judges in this way puts them at risk. No institution is beyond accountability, but we should broadly be proud in Britain of our independent judiciary that ensures everyday protections for working class people.”

“Judges can only give rulings on the law, no more, no less. Jenrick either doesn’t know this, which would be worrying for a Shadow Justice Secretary, or does – and clearly doesn’t care about the impact of his divisive rhetoric.”