High court claimant was fed answers through his smart glasses, judge finds | UK news
A judge found that a litigant was given answers via his smart glasses while giving evidence at the high court in London.
Bankruptcy judge Raquel Agnello KC stated that Laimonas Jakštys “lied when she denied using smart glasses” and that the witness statements were “clearly prepared by others”.
Agnello said Jakštys paused before answering questions while giving evidence. reported by Legal Futures. Defense lawyer Sarah Walker told the judge she could hear the intervention, which was confirmed by Jakštys’ interpreter, who asked him to take off his glasses.
Jakštys was testifying in a case filed by him and the Lithuanian company UAB Business Enterprise against the Bankruptcy and List of Companies.
Agnello said in it: judgment: “It was later established that Mr. Jakštys was wearing smart glasses. Before continuing the cross-examination, I asked him to take off his glasses. After a few questions, while the interpreter was translating a question, Mr. Jakštys’ mobile phone began broadcasting loudly with the voice of someone talking.
“It was clear that there was someone talking to Mr. Jakštys on the mobile phone. He then took the mobile phone out of the inner pocket of his jacket. On my instructions, the smart glasses and the mobile phone were placed in the hands of his lawyer.”
When asked what happened during the deposition, Agnello said, “He said he thought it was ChatGPT that caused the sound to be heard from the mobile phone after his smart glasses were removed. This has no credibility.”
“In my opinion, during cross-examination the smart glasses were clearly connected to the mobile phone because no sound was heard out loud until the smart glasses were removed and disconnected.”
Walker, Jakštys’ Lithuanian lawyer Dr. He said he was employed by Paulius Miliauskas, helped Jakštys prepare his witness statement, but denied acting on his behalf; this denial was denied by Agnello. Miliauskas was the only person watching the hearing via video link until the connection was disconnected on the judge’s instructions.
Agnello said: “I do not have to establish who coached Mr Jakštys, but I accept that Mr Jakštys was assisted or coached in his answers to questions put to him during cross-examination until this was stopped. Not only did I think that Mr Jakštys was lying when he denied using smart glasses… the effect of this is that his evidence is unreliable and untrue.”
He said he often played to save time after his smart glasses were removed because “it was obvious he didn’t know what his answer was supposed to be.”
As a result, it rejected Jakštys’ testimony “in its entirety” and ruled in favor of the defendants. “This was a career first for me, but with technological advances it may be something litigators will have to deal with much more frequently in the coming years,” Walker told Legal Futures.
