Question 1

Which location source is the most reliable?

Accepted Answer

It depends on the conditions, but as a rule a good GPS fix is the most precise (metres), Wi-Fi positioning is moderate (tens of metres), and cell-tower data is only approximate (an area), with photograph EXIF as good as the fix the camera had (§3, §4). No single source is authoritative in all conditions, which is why the method is not to pick the best source but to converge several, each at its honest confidence (§6).

Question 2

The other side says a cell record puts our client at a specific address. Is that right?

Accepted Answer

Almost certainly overstated: a cell-tower connection places a phone within that cell's coverage, an area that can span hundreds of metres or kilometres, not at a specific point (§4, Example 1). It is one of the commonest over claim s. A specific address is merely one place within the cell's area, and more accurate sources, GPS, Wi-Fi, EXIF, should be brought in to test whether the client was actually there.

Question 3

Does location data prove our client was there, or just their phone?

Accepted Answer

Strictly, the device (§6): phones are lent, left and shared, so location records place the device, and attribution to the person requires corroboration. Usually the device is with its owner, but not always (Example 2), so the honest finding distinguishes the two and reaches the person through other evidence, other location sources, messages, CCTV, a wearable, converging on the same conclusion.

Question 4

The sources disagree. Does that ruin the evidence?

Accepted Answer

Not at all, it can be the most revealing part: contradiction between sources is examined, not ignored (§6, Example 2). A conflict may show a device was left behind, a fix was stale, or clocks differed, and resolving it often exposes the truth. What is not acceptable is silently dropping the inconvenient source. Honest handling of contradiction is a strength of a proper geolocation analysis, not a weakness.

Question 5

Can we just get our opponent's full location history?

Accepted Answer

You should not, and usually cannot proportionately: a person's assembled movement history is among the most intrusive evidence there is, engaging serious UK GDPR duties (§7). Collection is scoped tightly to the relevant place and window and minimised, and the wider history is neither gathered nor exposed (Example 3). The narrow, proportionate slice is both the lawful course and, being focused and unassailable, the more persuasive one.

Question 6

There is no location data for the key period. Does that mean our client was not there?

Accepted Answer

No: absence of a location record is not proof of absence from a place (§4, §6). Location services may have been off, the device may have been else where or without signal, or the record may simply not have been kept. Gaps are explained, not over-read. And the estate may still answer the question, a vehicle, a wearable, CCTV or a counterpart's record may place the person where the device's own data is silent (§8). cflab. u k · e-disc ove r y. u k ©2026 Computer Forensics Lab Ltd ·cflab.uk ·e-discovery.uk ·info@cflab.uk ·+44 (0)20 7164 6915 Page 15 of 17

Geolocation Evidence