Hunted fugitive (Picture: Channel Four)

However gripping the stories in Channel Four’s Hunted series, I’m afraid that as a compliance consultant I found my mind wandering to more esoteric questions such as what kind of agreements did its contributors sign before the programme-makers were allowed - apparently - to break into their houses and tap phone calls to their loved ones? Compliance is an essential process for just about every programme which transmits on television and radio. All broadcasts have to comply with Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code, and most broadcasters also have their own editorial guidelines which staff and independent producers must follow. Some have in-house compliance teams working alongside lawyers and safety experts. Others use independent compliance consultants like me to help assess a programme’s editorial risks and advise on ways to resolve them, long before production even begins. I find that a great way to concentrate minds is to ask programme-makers what their defence would be if a viewer complained about a particular aspect of their show. Hunted’s proposition is that 14 members of the public attempt to stay off the surveillance radar for 28 days. They have £450 to survive on and 30 surveillance experts trying to track them down. On the face of it, it’s a compliance minefield: the risk areas would include legal issues, privacy, consent, surreptitious recording, transparency, deception and duty of care to the ‘fugitives’ and their family and friends.

The hunters' HQ (Picture: Channel Four)

Establishing the programme genre is a key requirement. It needs to be clear to the audience and contributors exactly what the programme is: a documentary, gameshow, piece of factual entertainment, enhanced reality, or a mix of genres. The answer to that question would inform decisions about what would be required to ensure transparency - to both the audience and the contributors (or ‘fugitives’). Hunted offered an interesting disclaimer at the start of the programme: “For the purpose of this series some of the powers of the state have been replicated including CCTV and ANPR [automatic number plate recognition]. “ This is interesting to me because it’s an attempt to square a particularly tricky circle: it’s controversial enough when the state uses surveillance to spy legally on every aspect of a person’s life but it’s quite another thing - ie. illegal - for a programme to assume those powers in the interests of entertainment. So the programme isn’t doing that, but it’s simulating it (“replicated” in the words of the disclaimer). And if something is being simulated then the audience can’t be being fooled into thinking it’s real: it must be told. Hence this somewhat mysterious statement placed prominently within the programme. On the face of it, “replicated” seems to me an unusual choice of word, as opposed to, say, ‘simulated’. But I’m certain a lot of time and effort would have been spent deciding it was the mot juste. It’s possible that it was felt that it gives more credence to the Orwellian ‘big brother’ feel they’re trying to convey within the programme.

Channel Four publicity: we're all finding it hard to escape from Hunted