Witness coaching with smart glasses & ‘Abra Kadabra’ the taxi driver

Tom Taylor, Solicitor

A witness in the witness box being coached through smart glasses? Sounds unbelievable doesn’t it? However, Judge Agnello KC in Business Enterprise v Oneta Limited [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch)) had to deal with just that situation.

Judge Agnello KC dealt with a witness of fact, the Second Claimant in this case, who used smart glasses to listen to a third-party whilst being cross-examined, in relation to a perfectly timed alleged robbery and a taxi driver by the name ‘Abra Kadabra’.

Mr Jakstys gave his evidence through an interpreter. During cross-examination, various parties in court, could hear interference coming from around Mr Jakstys. It transpired that Mr Jakstys was wearing smart glasses. Once the smart glasses were removed, Mr Jakstys’ mobile phone started broadcasting out loud with the voice of someone talking. ICC Judge Agnello KC held in her Judgment that “there was clearly someone on the mobile phone talking to Mr Jakstys”

Mr Jakstys 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 when he was giving evidence. He agreed to provide a screenshot of his mobile relating to the calls he made during the first day of evidence.

The call log from the day in question showed calls throughout the day to and from a number saved in his phone as ‘abra kadabra’. According to Mr Jakstys, ‘abra kadabra’ was his taxi driver and not the individual he was allegedly listening to during cross-examination.

ICC Judge Agnello KC rejected Mr Jakstys’ evidence in its entirety and in the Judgment described him as “untruthful” and gave no weight, therefore, to his witness statement.

Whilst a highly unusual occurrence, the Judgment highlights how the use of technology can be a breach of courtroom integrity which can have serious implications on witness evidence and, in extreme cases like this, lead to witness evidence being rejected in its entirety.