- 35 A A construction, the digital content of a mobile phone is not B B found “on the person” or “at or about the place” of the arrest C and is therefore not covered by section 50(6). D D 83. 15 I am unable to accept these submissions. E F C E 84. On the plain words of section 50(6), it is clear that the words F “may be found on his person or in or about the place at which he has been G H apprehended” refer to where the seized object (may it be newspaper, book or other document, or any other article or chattel) is located, but not to G H qualify where the actual inspection of the object that must be conducted. I J I 85. As submitted by Mr Mok, it would be absurd to suggest that J section 50(6) also requires that the inspection of the seized object must be K carried out “on the person”. Further, it is equally absurd to suggest that K L the provision requires the inspection of the contents of the seized object L also takes place in or about the place where the person has been M N apprehended. For example, if the police have seized a wallet found on a person arrested in the street and inspect the contents therein at the police M N station subsequently, such contents would no longer be on the arrested O O person, or in or about the place at which he has been apprehended. This P would not invalidate the seizure of the wallet in the first place. Once the P object is validly and lawfully found and seized on the person or at or Q Q about the place where the person has been apprehended as required under R S section 50(6), the court can see no good objective legislative intent to further require the contents and information contained therein to be only R S inspected also on the person or at or about the place. T T 15 The “place” arguments are also shared by Mr McCoy and Mr Albert Wong. U U V V