The High Court of Justice has dismissed a civil claim brought by the Duke of Sussex and five co-claimants alleging systemic unlawful information gathering by Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL).

高等法院駁回了由薩塞克斯公爵與五名共同原告提出的民事索賠，指控 Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) 系統性地非法搜集資訊。

The litigation centered on 97 allegations derived from 55 articles published between 1997 and 2015. The claimants, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Sir Elton John, asserted that ANL employed illicit methods such as voicemail interception, the installation of surveillance devices, and the procurement of private financial data. However, Mr Justice Nicklin adopted a forensic evidentiary standard, determining that the claimants failed to establish the unlawful acquisition of information on the balance of probabilities. The court ruled that where a legitimate sourcing mechanism—such as press officers or social acquaintances—remained plausible, an inference of illegality could not be sustained.

此訴訟集中於 97 項指控，源自 1997 年至 2015 年間發表的 55 篇文章。原告（包括 Doreen Lawrence 男爵夫人與 Elton John 爵士）主張 ANL 採取非法手段，例如截聽語音郵件、安裝監控設備以及獲取私人財務數據。然而，Nicklin 法官採取了嚴謹的證據標準，判定原告未能證明資訊獲取之非法性在機率上佔優勢。法院裁定，只要合法的獲取機制（例如新聞官或社交熟人）仍具可能性，就不能推論為非法行為。

Historically, this action follows a series of successful litigations by the Duke of Sussex against Mirror Group Newspapers and News Group, both of which resulted in settlements and apologies. In contrast, ANL maintained a consistent defense of total compliance, a position previously articulated during the 2011 Leveson Inquiry. The judicial scrutiny of the current case revealed significant evidentiary deficits; notably, the testimony of a key witness, Gavin Burrows, was deemed unreliable due to contradictory statements. Furthermore, the court characterized certain evidence provided by a press standards campaigner as unconvincing, noting that the information had been procured via paid intermediaries.

從歷史來看，此次行動繼薩塞克斯公爵對 Mirror Group Newspapers 與 News Group 的一系列成功訴訟之後，後兩者均以和解與道歉告終。相比之下，ANL 一直維持完全合規的辯護立場，此立場在 2011 年的 Leveson 詢問會期間已曾闡明。法院對本案的審查顯示證據存在顯著缺失；值得注意的是，關鍵證人 Gavin Burrows 的證詞因陳述矛盾而被視為不可靠。此外，法院認為某位新聞標準倡議人士提供的部分證據缺乏說服力，並指出該資訊是透過付費中間人獲取的。

Stakeholder responses diverge sharply. The claimants characterized the verdict as a 'whitewash,' while ANL and former editor Paul Dacre described the proceedings as a 'misguided' action and a 'conspiracy' intended to undermine the publication. The financial implications are substantial, with legal costs estimated at £50 million, the liability for which is subject to a forthcoming judicial determination.

利益相關者的反應截然不同。原告將判決形容為「掩蓋真相」，而 ANL 與前編輯 Paul Dacre 則將此次訴訟描述為一次「誤導」的行動，以及旨在削弱該出版物的「陰謀」。財務影響巨大，法律費用估計達 5,000 萬英鎊，其責任歸屬將由法院隨後決定。

The High Court has vindicated Associated Newspapers Ltd, effectively concluding a prolonged era of phone-hacking litigation in the United Kingdom.

高等法院為 Associated Newspapers Ltd 證明了清白，有效地結束了英國一段漫長的電話截聽訴訟時代。