Underage Magic during war & at the MoM

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 93700

Carol wrote:
> > I agree, more or less, <<SNIPPED STUFF ABOUT UAM MONITORING>> but 
> would like to add that IMO it's the place that's monitored, not the 
> person, and that the MoM doesn't necessarily know who performed the 
> magic: Note: "a hover charm *was performed*" in CoS. They don't know 
> for sure who performed the charm but they assume that it was Harry 
> because he's the only magical person in that neighborhood whose 
> existence they're aware of. (They don't even know about the Squib 
> neighbor, Mrs. Figg, and certainly don't know about Mark Evans if 
> Mark is indeed magical.) The Patronus charm is also (correctly) 
> assumed to be Harry, only this time they don't bother to use the 
> passive voice because they're so eager to get Harry expelled, but 
> still, I'm pretty sure it's an assumption based on their awareness
> (or presumption) that no one else in the neighborhood could have cast 
> the spell.

Arya:
> Then how would you explain how Tonks was able to use 'Scourgify' to 
> clean Hedwig's cage and 'Pack!' to help Harry pack his trunk?  Moody 
> also used the Disillusionment Charm on Harry in Privet Drive before 
> they left. And what's the point of the Order hanging around and 
> watching Harry if they happen to use magic to defend him and it only 
> results in Harry getting blamed for doing magic?  <snip>

Carol:
I wondered about that, too. I think that the Order members didn't
really care at that point. It was important just to get Harry out of
there. Since a much more difficult piece of magic had already been
performed and Harry was going to attend a hearing because of it, they
probably figured that a few minor spells wouldn't make any difference.
Also, the Muggles were gone from the house, as the MoM could probably
tell, so it really didn't matter at that point. Maybe they've even
temporarily made the house undetectable as part of the escape plan. 

Arya: 
> I think I have to disagree.  There's more to it than just monitoring 
> an area.  I also think there's something more complex to the 
> monitoring because it knows when the magic is done before a muggle.

Carol:
Exactly. There was no Muggle present to witness the scourgify and
disillusionment spells used by the Order members so they were largely
insignificant.
 
Arya:
> I'm not sure how the monitoring works--it can't just be that they can 
> monitor for ANY one person totally becasue that would make it all too 
> easy to track escaped criminals (Sirius casts spells in the Shack in 
> PoA and isdoing all sorts of spells in OotP)  Perhaps it's the 
> wand??  When Harry goes to the MoM, they weight his wand and that's 
> all the "ID" check thingy they do....does Ollivander register the 
> wands and is that how *spells* are monitored?  But that still doesn't 
> explain the Dobby Hover Charm...but I do think Dobby may be able to 
> fake how a spell looks to fool the MoM's monitors...he's tricky elf.  
> No answers and no hard theories...just more to ponder...


Carol:
You're right. It can't be the wand or they would have known that no
wand was involved in Dobby's Hover Charm. I still think it's the
location, and, as you say, the detectable presence of Muggles. I don't
think they can tell *who* is performing the magic, only when and where
and whether Muggles were present. If the only (known) person who can
perform magic in those circumstances is an underage witch or wizard,
the kid is in trouble. But if Fred, age seven, turns little Ronnie's
teddy bear into a spider, there are no consequences--at least not from
the MoM--because the MoM can't tell who performed the spell and there
are no Muggles present.

Carol