- 3 A B A 4. On arrest, the applicant was searched by the police, and five B mobile phones were seized. The arresting officer briefly inspected each C D of these mobile phones and took possession of them, saying that he suspected that they were related to the offences for which the applicant C D was arrested. Later, the police returned two of the five mobile phones to E E the applicant, and allowed the applicant to choose which two. F F 5. G H The police continued to retain the other three mobile phones (“the Subject Mobile Phones”), one of which was a smartphone, and sealed them separately into tamper-proof bags in front of the applicant G H and his legal advisers. The applicant’s legal advisers later claimed for I the applicant legal professional privilege (“LPP”) in respect of the I J Subject Mobile Phones. J After further interviews, the applicant was released on police bail in the evening of 4 July 2014. K L K 6. On 30 September 2014, the applicant applied for leave to L apply for judicial review, seeking (a) a declaration that section 50(6) of M N O the PFO (“section 50(6)”) does not authorise police officers to search without warrant the contents of mobile phones seized on arrest, or (b) alternatively if such search power is so authorised, a declaration that M N O section 50(6) is unconstitutional (“the unconstitutionality declaration”). P Q The applicant also sought the relief that the Commissioner’s decision (“the Decision”) made on 4 July 2014 to seize the Subject Mobile Phones for the purpose of searching their contents be quashed. R Q The court granted leave on papers on 8 January 2015. S R S 7. T P However, when it came to the substantive hearing of the judicial review on 4 November 2015, the Commissioner submitted that T U U V V