Claimant found using smart glasses to receive ‘coaching’ in cross-examination

The incident unfolded while Laimonas Jakstys was attempting to establish his ownership of property development firm Oneta Limited, whose assets include a London flat and parcels of land in Kent.

The case took a dramatic turn early in Jakstys’ cross-examination when, speaking through an interpreter, the judge immediately observed that he “seemed to pause quite a bit” before answering each question.

This conduct did not go unnoticed by the judge alone.

Counsel also raised concerns, revealing that after several of Jakstys’ answers, she could hear what sounded like interference or prompting from his surroundings, prompting her to question whether he might have been wearing smart glasses.

The interpreter seated beside Jakstys in the witness box corroborated these concerns, confirming that she too could hear the interference.

In response, the judge directed Jakstys to remove the glasses before allowing the cross-examination to proceed.

VIEW ALL

Moments later, as the interpreter was translating a question, Jakstys’ mobile phone suddenly began broadcasting another person’s voice aloud, prompting the judge to conclude that there was “clearly” someone on the line speaking to him.

Jakstys then took the phone from his jacket pocket, and the judge immediately ordered that both the glasses and the phone be handed to his solicitor.

After the court adjourned for the day, the judge directed that both items be handed to his solicitor, and when counsel later inspected the glasses, they connected to Jakstys’ phone the moment they were switched on.

Jakstys denied using the smart glasses to receive answers during his testimony, insisting they were not connected to his mobile phone and claiming that the voice heard during proceedings was generated by ChatGPT.

The court heard that, before taking the witness box, Jakstys made six calls to a contact saved in his phone as “abra kadabra”, which he claimed was a taxi driver, repeatedly insisting that the calls were merely to update the driver on his schedule.

However, when questioned about why he made so many calls delivering the same message, he admitted that he could not remember.

The judge ultimately found that Jakstys was “being untruthful”, observing that his explanation for the volume of calls “lacks any credibility”.

“In my judgment, from what occurred in court, it is clear that call was made, connected to his smart glasses and continued during his evidence until his mobile phone was removed from him,” Judge Raquel Agnello KC stated.

The name of the individual coaching Jakstys was withheld, though the defendants’ barrister suggested it was an overseas lawyer – the only person observing the proceedings via video link.

However, the judge concluded that Jakstys had been “assisted or coached” by this individual in formulating his responses during cross-examination – an intervention that only ceased once others became aware of it.

“Not only have I held that Mr Jakstys was untruthful in denying his use of the smart glasses and his calls to abra kadabra, but the effect of this is that his evidence is unreliable and untruthful,” Judge Agnello KC said.

The discovery had serious consequences, with the judge ruling that Jakstys’ evidence was rejected in its entirety, the defendants won, and an indemnity costs order was made in their favour.