The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) operates according to the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK ratified in 1950.

But Sir Noel said the European legal institution has extended its sphere of control to areas that are the "proper territory" of nation states and the UK should consider putting an end to its influence on British laws after Brexit.

He said: "The fundamental principles that the court in Strasbourg uses in reaching its judgments are inconsistent and in some ways quite incoherent.

"And it encroaches increasingly on areas of decision-making, lawmaking, that are the proper territory of a democratically elected parliament."

Speaking to BBC Radio 4 Today, the historian slammed the EU Court for increasingly changing the terms to which Britain had originally signed up to – suggesting the modification of its basic principles would lead to a "bad body of law."

He continued: "The court has expanded the scope of these human rights way beyond what is actually in the text of the convention, which was a treaty signed up by countries such as the UK in good faith.

"That doesn’t lead to a good body of law."

In September 2017, it was revealed the ECHR had failed to implement nearly 10,000 rulings, with some cases stretching back to 1992.

The UK has fallen foul of the court’s ruling in the past. Successive administrations have refused to repeal legislation preventing prisoners from voting despite a decision in 2006 saying Britain was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Nils Muižnieks, said that as some European countries fall short of democratic standards, judgements cannot be enforced.

Mr Muižnieks said: “Our work is based on cooperation and good faith. When you don’t have that, it’s very difficult to have an impact. We kind of lack the tools to help countries that don’t want to be helped.”