- 10 A B A In this respect, the Court of Appeal after considering a line of authorities B (both local and overseas) has emphasized and reiterated that: C C (1) A permitted lawful and non-arbitrary interference with one’s privacy right must be a justified one which satisfies the D D proportionality test (paragraphs 51 - 58). E E (2) In the context of a search which would interfere with privacy, prima facie, prior authorization (such as obtaining a F F judicial warrant) is a pre-condition for a valid search subject G to exception such as infeasibility of obtaining prior authorization under urgent situations, and other justifications H which can meet the proportionality test. I H It must be reminded that the vetting of an application for a warrant by judicial officer provides important safeguards against J G I J arbitrary interference with the right of privacy guaranteed under BOR14 (paragraphs 71 - 75). K L (3) K The proportionality test requires the court to consider if the L means used to impair the right is no more than necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose in question. M When M assessing proportionality in this context, one of the N examinations the court has to see is whether there are adequate and effective safeguards against abuse. The court O N O must examine whether the justification is cogent enough and P whether other safeguards are in place to protect a citizen P from abuse or excess of executive action in the name of Q Q investigation (paragraphs 60 - 70 and 90 - 91). R S (4) The test must be applied cautiously so that only a statutory provision authorizing a search which is manifestly R S disproportionate would be struck down as arbitrary. The T T U U V V