A judge discovered that a plaintiff was receiving answers through his smart glasses while giving evidence at London’s high court.
Laimonas Jakštys “lied in denying the use of smart glasses” and his witness statements “were clearly prepared by others,” ruled bankruptcy judge Raquel Agnello KC.
Agnello said that when Jakštys was testifying, he paused before answering questions, as Legal Futures first reported. Defense lawyer Sarah Walker told the judge she could hear interference, which was confirmed by Jakštys’ interpreter, and asked him to remove his glasses.
Jakštys testified in a case brought by himself and the Lithuanian company UAB Business Enterprise against the Insolvency and Companies List.
Agnello told his trial: “It later emerged that Mr Jakštys was wearing smart glasses. I asked him to take them off before continuing with the cross-examination. After a few more questions, when the interpreter was translating a question, Mr Jakštys’s mobile phone began to loudly emit the voice of someone speaking.
“There was obviously someone talking on a mobile phone with Mr. Jakštys. He then took his mobile phone out of the inside pocket of his jacket. Following my instructions, the smart glasses and his mobile phone were placed in the hands of his lawyer.”
Agnello said that when asked about what had happened during his testimony, “his explanation was that he thought it was ChatGPT that was causing the voice to be heard from his mobile phone once his smart glasses had been removed. That lacks credibility.”
“In my judgment, the smart glasses were clearly connected to his mobile phone during cross-examination because no loud voice was heard until the smart glasses were removed and disconnected.”
Walker claimed that Jakštys was being coached by Lithuanian lawyer Dr Paulius Miliauskas, who Jakštys claimed had helped him prepare his witness statement, but denied that he was acting on his behalf, a denial which was rejected by Agnello. Milauskas was the only person to watch the hearing via video link, until the link was canceled by order of the judge.
Agnello said: “I do not have to determine who was coaching Mr Jakštys, but I accept that Mr Jakštys was being assisted or coached in his answers to questions put to him during cross-examination until this was stopped. Not only have I argued that Mr Jakštys was a liar in denying his use of the smart glasses… but that the effect of this is that his evidence is unreliable and false.”
He said that once his smart glasses were removed, he frequently played for time because “it was clear to me that he just didn’t know what his response should be.”
He ultimately rejected Jakštys’ evidence “in its entirety” and ruled in favor of the defendants. Walker told Legal Futures: “This was my first professional career but, with technological advances, it may well be something litigators have to deal with much more frequently in the coming years.”
