English judge rebukes claimant ‘coached through smart glasses’

English judge rebukes claimant 'coached through smart glasses'

An English judge has rebuked a claimant who she found was being coached through a pair of smart glasses while giving evidence.

Laimonas Jakštys was asked to remove the glasses during proceedings before an Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) judge in the High Court in London.

In a ruling handed down last week, ICC Judge Raquel Agnello KC said Jakstys’ evidence to the court was “unreliable and untruthful” as he was “being assisted or coached in his replies to questions put to him during cross examination until this was stopped”.

After removing the glasses, Jakštys’ mobile phone “started broadcasting out loud with the voice of someone talking”, the judge noted. At the judge’s direction, the smart glasses and mobile phone were placed into the hands of his solicitor.

“When asked, Mr Jakštys denied that he was using the smart glasses to receive the answers that he was to give in court to the questions being asked. He also denied that his smart glasses were linked to his mobile phone at the time that he was giving evidence before me,” Judge Agnello said.

She observed: “Once Mr Jakštys was no longer had his smart glasses, he hesitated quite a bit before providing answers to questions. Frequently, he was asked a question and he would pause for some time before asking for the question to be repeated or he would say he did not understand the question.”

The judge found the smart glasses “were clearly connected to his mobile phone”, though said it was not necessary to determine who was coaching him.

She said “the effect of this is that his evidence is unreliable and untruthful” and that she had “also considered whether this affects the entirety of his evidence”.

Ultimately, the judge said: “In my judgment, the unreliability of his evidence arises not just because he was untruthful before me in relation to the smart glasses and being coached, but also because I do not accept that the content of his witness statements are really his evidence. In my judgment they were clearly prepared by others.”

She said she rejected Mr Jakštys’ evidence “in its entirety” for reasons including because he was “untruthful in relation to his use about the smart glasses and in being coached through the smart glasses”.

Join more than 17,000 legal professionals in receiving our FREE daily email newsletter
Share icon
Share this article: