A well-known businessman, Mr Shakes, is arrested and accused of committing massive fraud and corruption relating to government tenders. It is alleged that he, inter alia, bribed a high-ranking government official to obtain many of these tenders. While he is detained, the police search his house and place of business, and the offices of his attorney. Amongst other incriminating documentation, they seize a fax that is important proof of the generally corrupt relationship between Mr Shakes and the high-ranking government official. During his bail application, Mr Shakes is faced with a hard choice: if he testifies in order to ensure his release on bail, he will also give evidence that will incriminate him on the main charge. Fully answer the following questions with reference to the stated facts:

1. Is evidence given by an accused during his bail application admissible against him at the trial? Discuss with reference to S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC). (10)
2. During the trial, Mr Shakes' legal advisor objects to the admissibility of some of the documents seized at his legal offices on the ground that they constitute privileged information. Do you agree? Fully discuss. (10)
3. The main bone of contention, however, is the fax that was seized from Mr Shakes' place of business. The author of this fax is a foreign national and fears that he will be arrested if he ever sets foot in South Africa. Fully discuss, with reference to section (3)(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 and relevant case law, whether you would allow this fax to be handed in as evidence. (10)