DNA evidence accepted as settling claim to 1683 baronetcy

A dispute between two claimants to a Scottish baronetcy created in 1683 by Charles II has been settled by the Privy Council, which ruled today that DNA evidence should be accepted as upholding the claim of the challenger to the son of the previous title holder.

Seven judges agreed that Norman Murray Pringle ("Murray") had succeeded in showing that his grandfather, Sir Norman Robert Pringle, the eighth baronet in the baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill, was not the grandfather of the late Sir Steuart Robert Pringle, who had been enrolled as the 10th baronet and whose son, Simon Robert Pringle, sought to be enrolled as the 11th baronet. Norman Murray Pringle was therefore entitled to succeed to the baronetcy. 

Murray's claim relied on DNA evidence obtained as part of “the Pringle Surname Project”, which he founded to determine the chieftainship of the clan Pringle. The late Sir Steuart provided his DNA for the project. Expert opinion on the totality of the DNA evidence was that it provided “very strong support” for the view that the eighth baronet was grandfather to Murray but not Sir Steuart. Simon Pringle did not dispute the evidence, but raised four arguments as to why it should not be admitted on public policy grounds. The case was referred to the Privy Council under s 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.

Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge concluded that there was no legal ground for excluding the DNA evidence, which demonstrated to a high degree of probability that Sir Steuart's father, the oldest of three sons born to the eighth baronet's wife, was not the son of the eighth baronet.

The board observed that Scots law long had a strong presumption of paternity; in earlier times when illegitimacy carried social stigma, proof beyond reasonable doubt was required to rebut the presumption. Now, however, the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 provided that the presumption of paternity might be rebutted by proof on the balance of probabilities. Developments in science meant that evidence could now be used to establish paternity to a high degree of probability. Such evidence, if admissible, could readily rebut evidential presumptions, and DNA evidence in particular was widely accepted as a reliable means of ascertaining a person’s identity in civil and criminal matters.

Regarding the arguments as to why the DNA evidence should be excluded:

(1) Murray’s claim had not been extinguished by the law of prescription. Prior to 1973, the law of positive prescription did not protect the titles of the ninth and 10th baronets, because it protected only heritable property (and not merely heritable titles). From 1973, and consistently with the prior law, the right to succeed to an honour was confirmed as imprescriptible by para (h) of sched 3 to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

(2) Murray’s claim was not barred by the defence of mora, taciturnity and acquiescence on the part of Murray or his father. First, the defence was a personal bar directed against the claimant, so the inaction of Murray’s father was irrelevant. Secondly, Murray did not know of the illegitimacy of Sir Steuart's father until he received the DNA results. Thirdly, the defence operated as a shield and not as a sword; even if it succeeded to defend Murray’s claim, it could not establish Simon’s claim.

(3) Murray did not breach an obligation of confidentiality owed to Sir Steuart, or misuse Sir Steuart’s DNA. In providing his DNA for the Pringle Surname Project, Sir Steuart must have been aware that if his DNA excluded him from a claim to be the clan chief, it might also form the basis of a challenge to his entitlement to the baronetcy.

(4) Even if Murray’s use of Sir Steuart’s DNA amounted to breaches of the statutory duties owed by data controllers under the Data Protection Act 1998, it would be a disproportionate response to exclude evidence of such probative quality from consideration.

The board therefore concluded that Simon was not the great grandson of the eighth baronet and was not the heir male of the first baronet; and that Murray was the grandson of the eighth baronet and was, as the heir male of the first baronet, entitled to succeed to the baronetcy.