by the statute through a broad and purposive interpretation of section 83.28 (12) which suggest for a more fulsome participation by counsel during interview. It was also expounded that: "...the purposive approach is supported by the wide ambit given to the judiciary under ss. 83.28(5)(£>) and 83.28(7) to set or vary the terms and conditions of an order the power enabling the judge to respond flexibly to the specific circumstances of each application and ensures that constitutional and common law rights and values are respected... a broad and purposive interpretation of section 83.28 is consistent with the judiciary's role of protecting the integrity of the investigation and the interests of the named person that accords with the presumption of constitutionality and resolves ambiguities". In another case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700, 770-771, the Supreme Court (Lord Jonathan Sumption, as he then was) formulated four questions for determining the constitutionality of section 83.28 of the Canadian Criminal Statute in purview of proportionality principle. The questions were: (i) is the objective sufficiently important to justify limitation upon a fundamental right? (ii) is the measure rationally connected to the objective? (iii) could a less intrusive measure have been adopted? and (iv) has a fair balance been struck between individual rights and the interests of the community? As the subject matter concerned border control, the Court resolved in respect of the first question that, the intervention imposed at the border was not for border control per se but, rather the prevention and detection of terrorism adding that, the power of questioning and ordering for search was rationally connected to the main statutory objective that merited the safeguard. Concerning questions (iii) and (iv) the Court noted that, there was a plain rational reason for connecting Page 17 of 37