A judge stopped a legal case against Associated Newspapers Ltd. Prince Harry and five other people said the company stole their private information.

法官停止了一項針對 Associated Newspapers Ltd. 的法律訴訟。哈利王子與另外五人指控該公司竊取了他們的私人資訊。

The people said the newspaper stole their phone messages and private bank details. They looked at 55 stories from 1997 to 2015. But the judge said there was not enough proof. He said the newspaper probably got the information from friends or press officers.

原告稱該報社竊取了他們的電話訊息與私人銀行詳細資料。他們審視了 1997 年至 2015 年間的 55 篇報導。但法官表示證據不足。他認為報社可能是從朋友或新聞發言人處獲得這些資訊的。

Prince Harry won other cases against different newspapers before. But this company said they always followed the law. The judge did not believe the witnesses for Prince Harry. He said their stories were not true.

哈利王子先前在針對其他報社的訴訟中獲勝。但該公司聲稱他們始終遵守法律。法官不相信哈利王子的證人，認為他們的說法不實。

Now, the two sides are angry. Prince Harry's group says the result is wrong. The newspaper says the case was a mistake. The legal costs are very high. They are about 50 million pounds.

目前雙方均感到憤怒。哈利王子的團隊表示結果有誤。報社則稱此案是一場錯誤。法律費用極高，約為 5,000 萬英鎊。

The court said the newspaper did nothing wrong. This ends the long fight about phone hacking in the UK.

法院判定報社沒有做錯任何事。這結束了英國關於電話監聽的長期鬥爭。

The High Court has dismissed a legal case brought by the Duke of Sussex and five other people who claimed that Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) systematically gathered information illegally.

高等法院已駁回由薩塞克斯公爵與另外五人提出的法律訴訟，原告指控 Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) 系統性地非法搜集資訊。

The case focused on 97 allegations based on 55 articles published between 1997 and 2015. The claimants, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, asserted that ANL used illegal methods such as hacking voicemails, installing spying devices, and stealing private financial data. However, Mr Justice Nicklin decided that the claimants did not provide enough evidence to prove these illegal activities. The court ruled that if the information could have come from legal sources, such as press officers or friends, it could not be assumed that the methods were illegal.

本案聚焦於 1997 年至 2015 年間發表的 55 篇文章中涉及的 97 項指控。原告方，包括艾爾頓·約翰爵士與多琳·勞倫斯男爵夫人，主張 ANL 採取了非法手段，例如截獲語音郵件、安裝監視設備以及盜取私人財務數據。然而，尼克林法官裁定原告方未能提供足夠證據證明這些非法活動。法院判定，若資訊可能來自合法來源（例如新聞官或友人），則不能假設其獲取手段為非法。

This case is different from previous lawsuits by the Duke of Sussex against other newspaper groups, which ended in apologies and payments. In contrast, ANL always denied the claims and insisted they followed the law. The judge found that the evidence in this case was weak; for example, the testimony of a key witness was considered unreliable because his statements contradicted each other. Furthermore, the court stated that some evidence provided by a campaigner was not convincing because it was bought from third parties.

本案與薩塞克斯公爵先前針對其他報業集團的訴訟不同，後者最終以道歉和賠償告終。相比之下，ANL 始終否認指控並堅持其合法運作。法官發現本案證據不足；例如，一名關鍵證人的證詞被認為不可靠，因為其陳述自相矛盾。此外，法院表示一名運動人士提供的部分證據缺乏說服力，因為該證據是向第三方購買的。

Responses to the verdict have been very different. The claimants described the decision as a 'whitewash,' whereas ANL and its former editor, Paul Dacre, called the lawsuit 'misguided.' Additionally, the financial impact is huge, as legal costs are estimated at £50 million, and the court must now decide who will pay this amount.

各界對判決的反應迥異。原告方將此決定描述為「掩蓋真相」，而 ANL 及其前總編輯 Paul Dacre 則稱該訴訟為「誤導」。此外，財務影響巨大，法律費用估計高達 5,000 萬英鎊，法院目前必須決定由誰承擔這筆費用。

The High Court has cleared Associated Newspapers Ltd of the charges, effectively ending a long period of phone-hacking lawsuits in the UK.

高等法院已洗清 Associated Newspapers Ltd 的指控，有效地結束了英國一段漫長的電話截聽訴訟期。

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。