In a remarkable case at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, a High Court judge has determined that a claimant was receiving answers through smart glasses while giving evidence, leading to the complete rejection of his testimony. The insolvency judge, Raquel Agnello KC, found that Laimonas Jakštys was "untruthful in denying his use of the smart glasses" and that his witness statements "were clearly prepared by others."
Unusual Interference During Cross-Examination
According to the judgment, when Jakštys was testifying in a case involving himself and the Lithuanian company UAB Business Enterprise against the Insolvency and Companies List, he exhibited suspicious behavior. Agnello noted that he paused before replying to questions, as first reported by Legal Futures. Defence counsel Sarah Walker alerted the judge to hearing interference, which was confirmed by Jakštys's interpreter, prompting a request for him to remove his glasses.
Technological Deception Uncovered
It was later discovered that Jakštys was wearing smart glasses. After their removal, his mobile phone began broadcasting a voice aloud during the interpreter's translation of a question. Agnello described the incident: "There was clearly someone on the mobile phone talking to Mr Jakštys. He then removed his mobile phone from his inner jacket pocket. At my direction, the smart glasses and his mobile were placed into the hands of his solicitor."
When questioned, Jakštys claimed the voice was from ChatGPT, but Agnello dismissed this as lacking credibility, stating that the smart glasses were connected to his phone during cross-examination. The judge accepted that Jakštys was being assisted or coached in his replies until this was stopped.
Rejection of Evidence and Legal Implications
Agnello concluded that Jakštys's evidence was unreliable and untruthful, rejecting it "in its entirety" and ruling in favor of the defendants. She observed that after the smart glasses were removed, he frequently played for time because "it was clear to me he simply did not know what his reply should be."
Walker commented to Legal Futures that this was a career first but warned that with technological advances, such incidents may become more common for litigators in the future. The case highlights growing concerns about the use of technology in legal proceedings and the integrity of witness testimony.
