Jack Cai v The County Court of Victoria and Michelle Corbett of the Traffic Camera Office

The case of Jack Cai v The County Court of Victoria and Michelle Corbett of the Traffic Camera Office involved an appeal against a traffic offence conviction. Mr Cai sought to challenge the decision of a County Court judge who had set aside a subpoena duces tecum he had issued. The subpoena had sought the production of a manual relating to a red light camera. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Ginnane J presiding. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the County Court judge had erred in setting aside the subpoena duces tecum that Mr Cai had issued. Mr Cai argued that the judge had failed to properly consider the basis for the subpoena, specifically his legitimate forensic purpose to produce evidence to the contrary of the prosecution's case.

Ginnane J found that the County Court judge had erred in setting aside the subpoena. His Honour held that Mr Cai had indeed stated a legitimate forensic purpose for issuing the subpoena, which was to produce evidence to challenge the material contained in a photograph provided by the prosecution. The judge noted that the prosecution had relied on a certificate under s 83A of the Road Safety Act 1986 to prove that Mr Cai's vehicle had entered the intersection against the red arrow. To counter this, Mr Cai needed to establish the point at which the photograph, the camera, and the time clock treated his vehicle as having first entered the intersection. The Supreme Court granted relief in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, ordering the County Court to provide further sections of the manual to Mr Cai. On remitter to the County Court, additional sections of the manual were provided. However, a subsequent motion by Mr Cai seeking inspection of the entire manual was dismissed by the Supreme Court. An application for leave to appeal and a stay of the costs order were subsequently refused by the Supreme Court, with the Court finding that the application for leave to appeal was 'totally without merit'.

The final orders of the Supreme Court included the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal and the refusal of the application for a stay of the costs order. These orders were made pursuant to s 14D of the Supreme Court Act 1986.