Puzzling, alarming, legally risky. That was the reaction from criminal and human rights lawyers today to the Government’s plans to target persistent offenders with round-the-clock police attention.

As shown by comments left by frustrated Times Online readers, the public is fed up with persistent law-breaking and antisocial behaviour and wants the Government to take decisive action. One typical comment today said: “Yobs such as these need to learn rules so that they can live in a community.”

Trouble is, those rules do not discriminate. As unpalatable — and, yes, as politically correct — as it is, the law is the law. Yobs have rights, too.

And lawyers are concerned that the plans outlined by the Home Secretary could come uncomfortably close to infringing those rights.

Every British resident has the right to privacy in their family life, home and correspondence, as enshrined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This broadly framed law prevents the State from meddling in our private affairs.

There is a qualification: in certain circumstances, the authorities can intrude on an individual’s right to privacy if it is in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country.

The police would likely argue that the reduction in crime from close policing of persistent offenders would justify the infringement of some offenders’ Article 8 rights — and many readers would likely agree. But that’s not where the police are likely to run into trouble.

There is another, more problematic legal hurdle: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This law, introduced to plug a gap in dealing with stalkers, most commonly used in family disputes, makes it an offence to knowingly subject someone to a course of action that causes them alarm or distress. It carries both criminal and civil sanctions.

It is ironic that the sort of action the police reportedly plan to use against so-called “yobs” — knocking on doors at all hours of the day and night, photographing them as they walk around town — is precisely the sort of behaviour the Act seeks to prevent. If you or I did this to our neighbour, we would not only face criminal prosecution, the neighbour could sue for damages.

Again, the police have a get-out: the legislation allows for a limited exception whereby certain authorities such as the Post Office or HM Customs — and even investigative journalists — can claim they were acting to detect or prevent crime.

But even here they would need to be careful. Each case would be judged on its merits, and officers would need to demonstrate that their actions were necessary and proportionate.

The law does not give the police carte blanche to relentlessly pester every hoody on every estate in the country. They would have to show that each offender was as bad as they said they were, and indeed that they had the right person. Get it wrong and officers could open themselves to a legal challenge.

Aside from the legal rights and wrongs, lawyers raise a more fundamental question: given the amount of legislation the Government has at its disposal, is this really the most effective approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour?

As Jules Carey, head of the police action team at Tuckers Solicitors, puts it: “I am not in any way convinced that the remedy to anti-social behaviour and harassment is more harassment.”

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Hacker in final plea to stop extradition
• Lawyers? They're simply riveting . . .
• Companies slash legal spending