- 11 A A law must also be certain and ascertainable to satisfy the B B requirements under BOR14 (paragraphs 59 - 62). C C B3.2 The search of mobile phones and the decisions in Fearon and Riley D E F 23. The court notes the common ground among the parties that nowadays mobile phone is akin to a personal computer where massive D E F and extensive personal data and information can be stored in and G H accessed through it. Hence, such contents shall be subject to significant and high privacy constitutional protection. In the premises, any search G H power for law enforcement purposes which interferes with a person’s I J privacy, in order to be lawful, must satisfy the proportionality test (under BOR14) and be guided by “legal procedures” (under BL30). See the I J principles laid down in Keen Lloyd as summarized at paragraph 22 above. K L K 24. The issue of proportionality concerns where the line should L be drawn between individuals’ high expectation of privacy in their cell M N O P Q phones and the police’s ability of effective law enforcement to combat crime. Fearon and Riley are two leading authorities respectively in Canada and the United States dealing with this question.3 25. In Fearon, the applicant was tried for the offence of robbery with a firearm and related offences. At the trial, the police relied on M N O P Q certain evidence (photos and text messages) obtained by the police R S T through the search of the applicant’s mobile phone when he was first R Notwithstanding counsel’s industry, apparently there are no English authorities on this matter. At the same time, as helpfully pointed out by Mr McCoy in his skeleton submissions, in the UK, powers of arrest, search and seizure were comprehensively codified in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. At section 20 thereof, it has also provided for “extension of powers of seizures to computerized information”. S 3 T U U V V