A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 166199

Goddlefrood:

I try to be precise and believe I was. A cheery wave to the 
list reader and a cheery smile at the elves for illegal top 
posting There are a few points raised by Carol in her response, 
which I will now address.

> Carol responded to my earlier, none of which will be edited 
in here:

> If you'll look back at my previous posts, quotes and all, 
You'll see that Fudge has taken advantage of his position as 
Minister for Magic to include himself and Umbridge as 
Interrogators. The job of interrogator (judge?) was supposed 
to be Madam Bones's alone, as Head of the Department of 
Magical Law Enforcement, just as it's Barty Crouch Sr.'s 
alone (with no interference from the then-current Minister 
for Magic) in the GoF Pensieve scenes. The hearing was 
originally supposed to take place in Madam Bones's office. 
See also the remarks from Tonks et al. on Madam Bones' 
fairness. All quotes can be found upthread.


Goddlefrood, since you asked, but not about to put my wig and 
gown back on:

I read the entire sub thread thank you Carol. The points that 
I apprehended were in issue were addressed in my on list post 
here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/166188.

It appeared to me that intervention was required as some 
comments made, were, to say the least, a little close to the
knuckle.

It is true, as you say that Fudge forced the inception of "The
Hearing", but I wanted only to deal with that (the hearing 
itself).

My interpretation FWIW, as I said in my earlier on list, is 
that the constitution of the panel for the presiding body was 
in its nature somewhat similar to a Tribunal (and I define 
that, I believe). The closest legal system to what we see of 
the Wizengamot is probably either what's called a Star Chamber, 
or akin to how inquisitions were conducted during the Spanish
Inquisition (if interested on latter suggest Rafael Sabatini
- Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition). Google may also 
assist.

In fact it is also not dissimilar to the French or German
legal proceedings either, but I'm no expert on inquisitorial 
law, I'll admit, having never practiced in such jurisdictions.

I will say this, based on my analysis it is clear that JKR
did a great deal of research into legal proceedings. She is, 
probably, not as expert as I am (and I mean no conceit), but 
she certainly knows her stuff.

To Carol's points then. It may well be the case that the 
*original* intention was to have a closed door (in camera) 
hearing before Ms. Bones. It did not end up that way. I deal 
with it in my previous from what *actually* happened and did 
not care to address hypotheticals for the purpose of my 
analysis.

It is, though, Carol, as you suggest a fair extrapolation 
(assumption defeated - note to self) that the previous 
hearings we have been privileged to see *brief* parts of were 
different from Harry's. I allude to this in my earlier.

Aware as I am that the quote (p.27 of my edition - we ALL 
should know the publisher, we are grown ups ;)) mentions 
Interrogators I can not suggest that you then infer this 
equates with the word Judges.

All *I* can infer, and I mention this in previous, is that 
the hearing Harry attended was conducted by a presiding body 
with the format outlined there. Chairman, Legal Expert and 
another undefined role for Dolores. Notwithstanding the use 
of the word Inquisitors, which I am not comfortable with 
accepting.

> Carol: 

> Nor does Madam Bones vote on the question of whether to 
drop the charges or declare Harry guilty. (Note that, as she 
poses the question, an innocent verdict is not an option. 
She's making it possible to clear Harry of charges altogether. 
I appeal to Goddlefrood's expertise here as to whether that 
means that his hearing is not a matter of public record, as 
it would be if he'd been found innocent.) She *calls for* a 
vote, and *Fudge* votes, but Madam Bones apparently doesn't, 
which is why I see her as judge rather than a member of the 
jury (the Wizengamot as a whole). 

"Fudge raised his hand; so did half a dozen others, including 
the heavily-moustached wizard and the frizzy-haired witch in 
the second row." (p. 138, Bloomsbury edition.) There is no 
corresponding reference to Madam Bones, who, after all, would 
be influencing the vote she's calling for if she voted.

Goddlefrood:

It is not clear whether she does or not. Here, for your 
further edification is one plausible interpretation. As a 
preface I apprehend that she did vote. My reasoning? :

"'Those in favour of clearing the witness of all charges?' 
said Madam Bones's booming voice.
Breathing hard and fast, Harry looked around him. Not one of
the witches and wizards in the room (and there were at least
two hundred of them) was looking at him" (GoF, Bloomsbury
Hardback Edition, p. 138 - The Pensieve) (and yes Carol that
was a mistyping on my account originally :))

It is simply inconceivable that Madam Bones did not vote in 
favour of clearing Harry of all charges (more usually termed
voting not guilty, not proven appearing to be unavailable).
We just were nit shown it. Another Marauder's Map incident in
my humble submission.

She was a member of the panel of Inquisitors (JKR's term, 
not mine for preference) and as Fudge and Umbridge both voted 
against in it a not unreasonable conclusion to propose that
she DID vote.

Your point on record keeping is an interesting one. In the real 
world records of most, if not entirely all, proceedings, whether
held in open court or otherwise, are kept. Typically for no less
than 12 years in common law jurisdictions. My view is that the 
WW, particularly the MoM, being the rampant bureacracy it is 
portrayed as would almost certainly retain records of any 
proceedings. I will not hazard a guess as to how long such
imaginary records are kept.

> Carol:

> Fudge again steps in to say "Cleared of all charges, but 
that does not make it his job to do so." He is, IMO, 
overstepping his authority here and throughout the book with 
his ministerial decrees and the appointment of Umbridge as 
High Inquisitor. <SNIP>

On this point, it will be found from my earlier, that I 
concluded that Fudge was the Chairman, the relevant canon 
quotes are there. It is *always* part of the function 
(please not job) of a Chairman in a proceeding to announce 
the verdict, however reluctant he or she may be, and of course 
Fudge appeared reluctant.

He is not overstepping his authority *here* although he may 
have done so before the proceedings were convened. Once they 
were convened he *was* the Chairman and carried out the 
expected function of one.

The same comments apply equally well to Dolores, although her 
exact function in the proceedings is unclear, sorry I can't be 
more helpful on that.

> Carol

> BTW, and this aside has no real importance, I wonder who the 
moustached wizard and frizzy-haired witch who voted with Fudge 
are. <SNIP>

Goddlefrood:

Yes, Carol, it is intriguing. They are both also mentioned 
during the course of Mrs. Figg's testimony (p. 132) as well 
as during the voting.

This is no speculative piece, I'll save that for another time 
(not this point on these two btw, other matters), but I will 
say that they are of interest. Whether we will find out any 
more about them I will not, as opposed to can not, get into.

Perhaps simply a little food for thought. These are obviously 
my own interpretations, but I did mention that I am qualified 
to assert them, did I not?

Goddlefrood, still battling mosquitoes ;)