Smart glasses courtroom coaching just became a real legal problem. In March 2026, a London High Court judge caught a witness receiving real-time instructions through smart glasses connected to a mobile phone during active cross-examination, then attempting to cover it up with implausible explanations. The incident exposes a critical vulnerability in how courts manage emerging wearable technology—and raises uncomfortable questions about how many other cases may have been compromised by similar tactics.
Key Takeaways
- A witness in a London property dispute was caught wearing smart glasses connected to a mobile phone during testimony.
- Judge Raquel Agnello KC rejected his evidence “in its entirety” after discovering real-time voice coaching through the device.
- The witness claimed the phone was broadcasting ChatGPT when disconnected, a story the judge found lacking credibility.
- Multiple calls to a contact labeled “abra kadabra” were made from his phone during his time in the witness box.
- The defendants won the case, with indemnity costs awarded in their favour.
How Smart Glasses Courtroom Coaching Was Discovered
The discovery happened almost by accident. During cross-examination in the Insolvency and Companies Court at London’s High Court, Judge Agnello noticed the witness, Laimonas Jakštys, “seemed to pause quite a bit” before answering questions. The pauses were suspicious—too deliberate, too timed. When counsel heard faint interference coming from around the witness box, she asked directly: was he wearing smart glasses?
The interpreter in the witness box confirmed she could also hear the interference. That’s when things moved fast. The judge ordered Jakštys to remove the smart glasses. The moment he did, his mobile phone “started broadcasting out loud with the voice of someone talking”. The judge immediately directed both the smart glasses and the phone be placed in the hands of his solicitor. Jakštys returned the next day wearing the same smart glasses; the judge ordered their removal again.
What emerged from phone records was damning. Multiple calls had been made to a contact saved in his phone as “abra kadabra”—supposedly a taxi driver—during his evidence. The last call was made within minutes of him entering the witness box. This wasn’t a single slip-up. It was systematic, deliberate, and sustained. Judge Agnello concluded: “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”.
Why the Witness’s Explanations Failed
Jakštys had answers for everything, and none of them held up. He denied the smart glasses were linked to his phone. He denied receiving coaching. He claimed the contact “abra kadabra” was merely a taxi driver he was trying to reach about his court schedule. When his phone broadcast audio after the glasses were removed, he offered perhaps the most implausible explanation yet: ChatGPT had somehow activated on its own.
Judge Agnello was unimpressed. “That lacks any credibility,” she stated flatly. The judge’s ruling went further than simply rejecting his testimony on the smart glasses incident. She rejected his evidence “in its entirety,” finding that “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”. This wasn’t a case of a nervous witness making honest mistakes. This was coordinated deception.
What This Reveals About Courtroom Technology Gaps
The case exposes a stark reality: courts have no established protocols for detecting or managing smart glasses and similar wearable devices. Smart glasses with real-time voice communication capabilities are consumer products, widely available and relatively inconspicuous. A witness can wear them into a courtroom without obvious detection—until a judge notices pauses, or counsel hears interference, or someone asks the right question at the right moment.
The defendants’ barrister submitted that the coaching was likely being provided by a lawyer based overseas who was the only person watching proceedings via video link, though the judge did not definitively identify the coach. Whether that theory is correct or not, it illustrates a second vulnerability: remote participation in trials creates new opportunities for off-camera coordination and real-time assistance that traditional in-person courtrooms were never designed to handle.
Courts now face a choice. They can implement security protocols to detect and confiscate smart glasses before testimony begins—similar to existing rules about mobile phones. They can require witnesses to undergo searches or to declare all wearable devices. Or they can hope this incident was an anomaly and leave the door open for more sophisticated attempts. The London High Court’s ruling sends a message, but it is reactive, not preventive. The next witness might be more careful, more convincing, or simply better prepared.
How This Case Compares to Previous Courtroom Fraud
Witness coaching is not new. Lawyers have long been accused of prepping witnesses too aggressively, crossing the line from legitimate preparation into improper suggestion. But smart glasses courtroom coaching represents a qualitative shift. It is real-time, it is remote, and it is nearly invisible. Traditional coaching happens in a lawyer’s office days or weeks before trial. This happened in the witness box, in real time, with the judge present.
The sophistication also matters. Jakštys did not simply lie under oath—many witnesses do, and juries are expected to assess credibility. He attempted to use technology to create a hidden communication channel, then fabricated multiple explanations when caught. The judge’s response—rejecting his entire witness statement, not just the testimony about the glasses—reflects how seriously she viewed the breach of trust. It is a signal that smart glasses courtroom coaching is not a minor procedural violation. It is an assault on the integrity of the trial itself.
What Happens Next for Courtroom Technology Rules
The ruling in Jakštys’ case is binding on that trial, but it does not automatically change courtroom rules across England and Wales. However, it will almost certainly prompt guidance from senior judges and court administrators. The Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority may issue practice notes. Courts may begin screening witnesses for smart glasses and other wearables as routine procedure.
The real question is whether courts will move fast enough. Technology evolves quicker than procedure. By the time smart glasses are formally banned from courtrooms, the next generation of wearables—contact lenses with embedded displays, neural interfaces, or devices not yet invented—may already exist. The London case is a wake-up call. It is not a solution.
Could the witness have successfully hidden the coaching?
Possibly. If Jakštys had removed the smart glasses before entering the courtroom, if he had not made multiple calls to “abra kadabra,” if he had given answers that sounded natural rather than pausing unnaturally before each response, the judge might never have noticed. The interference heard by counsel and the interpreter was critical to discovery. A quieter device, a more convincing performance, or a witness who did not return to court wearing the same glasses the next day might have succeeded.
What does the judge’s ruling mean for the defendants?
The defendants won the case outright. With Jakštys’ evidence rejected entirely, the defendants’ version of events prevailed. The judge awarded an indemnity costs order in their favour, meaning Jakštys must pay the defendants’ legal fees. This is not a partial victory—it is total vindication, with financial consequences for the other side.
Will this case lead to new courtroom security protocols?
Almost certainly. Courts cannot afford to assume this was an isolated incident. Expect guidance on declaring wearable devices, potential screening procedures, and clearer rules about what technology is permitted in the witness box. However, implementing these protocols takes time, and enforcement will vary across different courts and jurisdictions. The London case provides the motivation. Whether courts act with sufficient urgency remains to be seen.
The smart glasses courtroom coaching scandal is a watershed moment for legal procedure in the digital age. It reveals that the traditional rules of evidence and witness credibility were written for a world without real-time remote coaching technology. Judge Agnello’s decisive rejection of Jakštys’ testimony sends a clear message: courts will not tolerate this kind of deception. But the real test comes next—whether the legal system can adapt its procedures fast enough to prevent the next attempt, because there will be one.
Edited by the All Things Geek team.
Source: TechRadar
