Full Breakdown
High Court Ruling on Smart Glasses Used in Courtroom Coaching
3/14/2026, 6:03:05 PM
Uncovering the Core Event
In a notable case at the High Court in London, Laimonas Jakštys was found to have used smart glasses connected to his mobile phone to receive answers during his cross-examination. Judge Raquel Agnello KC ruled that Jakštys was untruthful in denying the use of these devices, which significantly undermined the credibility of his testimony.
Details of the Incident
The case involved Jakštys and the Lithuanian company UAB Business Enterprise, who sought to rectify the company register and reinstate Jakštys as a director of Oneta Ltd. During his testimony, Judge Agnello observed that Jakštys paused excessively before answering questions, prompting defense counsel Sarah Walker to raise concerns about potential interference. Upon inspection, it was confirmed that Jakštys was wearing smart glasses, which were later found to be connected to his mobile phone. The situation escalated when his phone began broadcasting the voice of an unidentified individual, leading to the judge ordering the removal of both the glasses and the phone.
Findings of the Judge
Judge Agnello concluded that Jakštys's evidence was "unreliable and untruthful," stating that his witness statements appeared to have been prepared by others. She noted that Jakštys's explanations for the calls made during his testimony lacked credibility, particularly his claim that he was merely trying to contact a taxi driver. The judge emphasized that the smart glasses were clearly linked to his phone during the cross-examination, as no voice was heard until the glasses were removed.
Coaching Allegations
The judge did not pinpoint the individual responsible for coaching Jakštys but acknowledged that he was being assisted in his responses during cross-examination. It was suggested that Dr. Paulius Miliauskas, a Lithuanian lawyer, was involved, as he was the only person watching the proceedings via video link. The judge accepted that Jakštys was receiving guidance, which contributed to the unreliability of his testimony.
Implications for Future Litigation
The ruling has raised concerns about the potential for technological advancements to influence courtroom proceedings. Walker remarked that this incident could be a precursor to similar challenges in the future, as litigators may increasingly encounter cases involving smart devices. Legal experts, including barrister Saara Idelbi, noted that while this case involved human coaching, future instances might involve artificial intelligence, highlighting the risks associated with smart wearables in legal contexts.
Official Statements & Responses
Judge Agnello stated, “I reject Mr. Jakštys's evidence in its entirety. He was untruthful in relation to his use of the smart glasses and in being coached through them.” Walker emphasized that this case represents a significant moment in legal proceedings, suggesting that such technological issues may become more common.
Conclusion
The High Court's ruling against Laimonas Jakštys underscores the challenges posed by emerging technologies in legal settings. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the integrity of evidence and the potential for technological manipulation in courtrooms, raising important questions about the future of litigation in an increasingly digital world.
