Comedians Paul Merton and Ian Hislop have a lot to answer for when it comes to the legality of what can and can’t be said on the radio.

Their use of the word ‘allegedly’ on the BBC’s Have I Got News for You has become a running joke – and lulled a generation of radio presenters into believing that if they use it too, they can say what they liked about anyone.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, using the word allegedly before a potentially dangerous remark about someone gives the impression you realise what you’re about to say is dodgy. It’s perceived as admittance that you’re uncertain whether what you’re saying is true.

There are a number of reasons why the Have I Got News for You team – and other satirical radio and TV comedy shows – get away without being sued. Context is everything. If things are presented in a light-hearted way on a comedy show, there’s far less chance of being sued than if allegations are presented on a news bulletin or even a breakfast show which contains music and serious information as well as comedy.

The crunch is that the listener must be aware of the type of show. Merton and Hislop have built a solid reputation for comedy and satire over 3

0 years or so – and they also have a team of lawyers who sit through the recording and editing process.

To say you didn’t know isn’t a valid argument when it comes to the law – lack of knowledge is no defence.

There are two main areas of the law which concern radio presenters – libel and contempt.

The gist of the law of libel is that it’s there to protect people’s reputation. The law says everyone has a right to a good name unless there’s evidence to the contrary. Anything ‘published’ which damages a person’s reputation is defamatory – literally ‘de-faming’. Usually spoken defamations are called slander but because broadcasting is ‘publishing’ words, radio is actually covered by libel.

The legal definition of defamation says something is libellous if it:

• Exposes anyone to hatred, ridicule or contempt
• Causes anyone to be shunned or avoided
• Lowers anyone in the estimation of reasonable people
• Disparages anyone in their business, trade or profession.

It’s often thought that not using someone’s name is a way of avoiding libel. This isn’t true. A person only has to be identifiable, not named.

Everything broadcast on your show is your responsibility. The onus of proof is on you, even when you’re reading something out of The Sun or The Mirror or from a website. By repeating the offending words, you’re repeating the libel. The person libelled could take both your station and the newspaper to court.

You have to be particularly careful about interviewees and phone-in callers – even those calling to take part in competitions. One presenter I know was talking to a schoolboy who’d rung to take part in a contest and asked him about his school. At first things were fine – until the presenter asked what his least favourite subject was and then who was the worst teacher in the school. The child innocently named the teacher – who then promptly threatened to sue the radio station for libel.

There’s a useful legal defence against libel known as innocent dissemination, or the ‘live defence’. This protects a broadcaster on live radio when they have no effective control over the maker of the defamatory remark. But you have to prove you took reasonable care and had no prior knowledge that the remark was going to be made. And of course, this doesn’t apply to voice tracking.

A person or organisation can sue for libel damages. A libel action is usually settled by the payment of damages and the broadcast of a formal apology.

Although radio stations are covered by insurance for this, premiums go up if there is a successful legal action – and the paperwork involved in dealing with a formal legal complaint is immense and time-consuming.

The other major legal problem area for presenters is contempt. If you get things wrong here, you and your boss could actually end up going to jail!

The Contempt of Court Act is designed to ensure that everyone gets a fair trial. Nobody is allowed to prejudice – or pre-judge – a current or forthcoming court case or speculate on the outcome.

It’s contempt to suggest someone is guilty before the jury has reached its verdict. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to pre-judge the case, you’re in trouble just by doing it.

Legal proceedings become ‘active’ from the moment an arrest is made or a summons is issued – and the laws of contempt apply from this point onwards up to and including the trial itself.

During the trial of Dr Harold Shipman, presenters at Preston’s Rock FM suggested on air that Dr Shipman was “guilty as sin” and that he should “admit to it” while the case was being held at the city’s court. The presenters and their boss were arrested and taken to court where they appeared before a robed and bewigged judge who told them it was only the prompt action of management in apologising swiftly that had prevented them being sent to prison.

Legally, the danger was clear. Because the trial was being held in the same area where the radio station could be heard, a juror driving home from court might have heard the comments on the radio and been influenced. This could have led to the abandonment of the trial at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The laws of libel and contempt are complex and change from time to time. There are also a number of exceptions to the general rules. The best advice to presenters is: If in doubt, leave it out.

Failure to understand your legal responsibilities as a presenter can cost your radio station lots of money, lose you your job and possibly land you in a prison cell.

That’s not so funny now, eh, Paul and Ian?