- 4 A B A the judicial review had become academic and should be dismissed, B because the police had already returned the Subject Mobile Phones to the C D applicant without searching its contents (given the claim of LPP). Moreover, the police had decided not to lay any charges against the C D applicant. E F E 8. After hearing submissions, the court decided to continue to hear the judicial review. G H The court agreed that the application concerned with the scope and constitutionality of section 50(6) in relation to the search of the digital contents of seized mobile phones, and similar challenges were likely to arise again in the future. I J hearing was then adjourned to 21 December 2015, to enable the Commissioner to file further evidence. O P Q R S T H I J K B. THIS JUDICIAL REVIEW B1. The warrantless section 50(6) M N G The substantive K L F 9. search power incident to arrest under Under section 50(1) of the PFO, it shall be lawful for any police officer to apprehend any person who he “reasonably believes” will be charged with or whom he reasonably suspects of being guilty of an offence as defined therein. 10. L M N O P Section 50(6) further provides that: Q “Where any person is apprehended by a police officer it shall be lawful for such officer to search for and take possession of any newspaper, book or other document or any portion or extract therefrom and any other article or chattel which may be found on his person or in or about the place at which he has been apprehended and which the said officer may reasonably R S T U U V V