Types of maps admissible in Court?

ABBACA

Hi - can anyone confirm what type of maps are allowed as evidence in court? Is it OS maps only in actual paper form or are Google maps (screen shot) accepted?

I think I remember reading it was actual OS maps only but can't find anything about it now. Thanks

Victor

Any map can be accepted, but it may very much matter on context, especially for land matters. An OS map would normally be accepted, provided it is up to date and accurate (all maps are known for glitches and 'watermarking'). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street

Of course, any professionally-created map, certified as correct will have more gravitas than something sketched on the back of an envelope.

GM228

I think the huge issue between an OSI and Google maps will be (as with any documentary evidence) authentication of the maps.

Google maps could present issues under the Rules of Evidence in relation to reliability and authenticity and issues showing that the maps have not been altered or been subject to any attempted spoliation over the course of tbeir lifetime.

Another thing to note if used in a civil trial - as Google maps is most likely based on "original" OSI maps no doubt the "best evidence" rule applies meaning that OSI maps should be produced as they would be the original verifiable maps, the idea of the ancient rule is to mitigate against any risk of errors or fraud.

Pat Mustard

If you look at satellite view in Google Maps and zoom in, you will see the Google Maps roads laid over the satellite view of the roads.

There are many extremely obvious anomalies between the two, so accuracy is questionable.

Victor

And if you look at OS maps, you see things like this: http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,715343,741290,11,3 where the slip roads are shown as not being motorway.

Or here: http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,712663,737342,11,3 where the bridge is missing.

Or Docklands as a tram stop: http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,717211,734818,9,3 and Goldenbridge Luas is missing: http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,712322,733071,11,3

Samuel T. Cogley

Went to go an sit in on a murder trial during an internship. The day I went down it was almost nothing but the garda mapper or whatevcer they're actually called. Talk about working at the **** end of the sexy stuff.

ED E

Projections matter (Minor GIS experience here)

Google Earth is in a Geographic coordinate system with the wgs84 datum (EPSG: 4326)
Google Maps is in a projected coordinate system that is based on the wgs84 datum (EPSG 3857)

OSI use ITM or Irish Transverse Mercator which is the standard for the state. This is the best approximation for the Island of Ireland but crap elsewhere. Google Earth use 84 which is generally close-ish worldwide (thus is used for GPS).



If the case was a matter where accuracy was important the first case would be to produce a local map in ITM from whatever source you want. If you want better again (as these are imperfect) then an actual survey of a smaller area (say a field) can go better again.

IsaacWunder

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Went to go an sit in on a murder trial during an internship. The day I went down it was almost nothing but the garda mapper or whatevcer they're actually called. Talk about working at the **** end of the sexy stuff.

Was it Inspector Atlas of the cartography squad? :pac:

Claw Hammer

Ordinance survey maps are self proving by law. Google maps are photographs and have to be proven the same way as any other photograph.

Robbo

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Was it Inspector Atlas of the cartography squad? :pac:

Charles Atlas, I believe. Built like a brick latrine as well.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Ordinance survey maps are self proving by law.

Not in themselves, unless it is the original map which would not be released by OSI (unless brought to the court by the OSI themselves).

All OSI maps made available for sale or viewing online are copies of the original map (the original map held in vacuum vaults by OSI I believe), however if they are signed and verified by the OSI as a true copy of the original it is that signature and verification which is considered conclusive evidence of the map being a true copy of the original map and are so admissable as evidence as per the provisions of the County Boundaries (Ireland) Act 1872 and previously held by the Supreme Court.

In other words if you simply produce an OSI map you bought in a local gift shop or printed online it will still require authentication.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

Not in themselves, unless it is the original map which would not be released by OSI (unless brought to the court by the OSI themselves).

All OSI maps made available for sale or viewing online are copies of the original map (the original map held in vacuum vaults by OSI I believe), however if they are signed and verified by the OSI as a true copy of the original it is that signature and verification which is considered conclusive evidence of the map being a true copy of the original map and are so admissable as evidence as per the provisions of the County Boundaries (Ireland) Act 1872 and previously held by the Supreme Court.

In other words if you simply produce an OSI map you bought in a local gift shop or printed online it will still require authentication.

Minister for Defence , Complainant v. Matthew Buckley, Denis Halpin and Andrew Lawlor, Defendants
Ordinance survey map.

The admissibility of a certified copy of it in evidence is provided for by s. 6, sub-s. 5, of the Act of 1961 but the evidential effect of its reception in evidence is governed by common law, that is to say, as a public document it is prima facie evidence of every particular stated in it and which was within the purposes for which it was prepared: see Cross on Evidence (4th ed., p. 454) and Phipson's Law of Evidence (11th ed., p. 399). In either civil or criminal proceedings, should anyone wish to give evidence impugning the accuracy of what the map purports to define for the purposes of the Act, he is at liberty to do so but, in the absence of such rebutting evidence, the court is entitled to act on the basis that the areas defined by the statute are correctly identified in the map.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Minister for Defence , Complainant v. Matthew Buckley, Denis Halpin and Andrew Lawlor, Defendants
Ordinance survey map.

The admissibility of a certified copy of it in evidence is provided for by s. 6, sub-s. 5, of the Act of 1961 but the evidential effect of its reception in evidence is governed by common law, that is to say, as a public document it is prima facie evidence of every particular stated in it and which was within the purposes for which it was prepared: see Cross on Evidence (4th ed., p. 454) and Phipson's Law of Evidence (11th ed., p. 399). In either civil or criminal proceedings, should anyone wish to give evidence impugning the accuracy of what the map purports to define for the purposes of the Act, he is at liberty to do so but, in the absence of such rebutting evidence, the court is entitled to act on the basis that the areas defined by the statute are correctly identified in the map.

What case was this, I can't find it in the usual places, but no doubt it has something specifically to do with the Curragh of Kildare Act 1961.

The position I outlined was held by the Supreme Court in the Brown vs Donegal Co. Co. [1980] IR 132 case in which Mr. Justice Griffin held that OSI maps must be duly certified/signed by the OSI to be prima facia evidence under the common law rules in relation to public documebts, but I believe your quoted case is in line with this though.

The common law provision mentioned in your quoted case provides that a public document which is a document produced by official government printers and bears the stamp, seal or signature of certain officers/departments or by a private entity which has had the task delegated to it (in this case the OSI) is prima facia evidence of the matters they concern, this common law provision originates from the Mortimer vs M‟Callan [1840] 6 M & W 58 case.