- 19 A B A 46. In considering these questions, the court will bear in mind B the principles and approach laid down in Keen Lloyd as summarized C C above. D D 47. E F In my view, on a proper construction, section 50(6) only empowers the police officer to search without warrant the digital content of mobile phone in exigent circumstances, and that is constitutional. E F I will explain why. G H G 48. It is trite that the court adopts a purposive construction of a H statutory provision, which should be construed in its proper context, and I insofar as possible, the court should adopt a construction which is J constitutionally compliant.4 K M J K 49. L I The present form of section 50(6) was amended (together with sections 50(1), (2), (3), (7), 51, 54 and 56) in 1992 under the Police Force (Amendment) Bill. As explained in the Legislative Council Brief L M of the Police Force (Amendment) Bill (SBCR 7/2801/77) dated N O May 1992 prepared by the Security Branch (“the LegCo Brief”), the purpose of the amendments was to ensure that these provisions would be N O consistent with Articles 5 and 14 of the BOR which was to come into P Q effect in June 1992. Articles 5 and 14 of the BOR provide respectively that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention and no one P Q shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy. R S The amendments proposed were said to remove the potential “arbitrariness” that might be argued against the original provisions. 4 T See: T v Commissioner of Police (2014) 17 HKCFAR 593 paragraphs 194 - 196, per Fok PJ; HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 at paragraphs 78 - 79, per Mason NPJ. Mr McCoy’s skeleton at paragraph 52. R S T U U V V