Lyon Model United Nations 2017
Study Guide
Forum: Wizengamot
Topic: The trial of Lucius Malfoy
Chairs: Charlotte Perret, Wish Yardpaga
I.
Rules of procedure
The Wizengamot of LyonMUN 2017 will work in the same way as a Criminal Court of
Justice. The rules of procedure will thus be based on the rules of an ICC moot Court.
A. The beforehand work
The defense and the prosecutors will have a lot of work to do before the conference start.
They will first have to write a memorandum that should contend the arguments they will base
their pleads on. These arguments can vary from legal documents to ethical and moral reasons.
It should also state the penalty that both party want for the accused.
Afterwards both parties have to find proofs to present to the Court. For equality reasons
the number of proofs should be the same for both parties and both need to have access to them
before the trial. Proofs can be testimonies, images, documents… You can find them in the
books, the movies and in fanfiction (as long as it stays realistic and reasonable). Witnesses will
be available, thus you must write their speeches for when they appear before Court.
Once these proofs have been given to the chairs and the other party, it will be time to
find other proofs in order to use those for cross-examination. These can be the same proofs as
those used before or completely new ones.
B. During Court
Once the session starts, both parties will begin by reading their memorandums and
adding some arguments and what they expect from this trial. Each will have a 30minutes time
constraint to use as they please. Judges will only be allowed to ask questions once both parties
have spoken.
Then each party will be asked one after the other to present their proofs in the order they
desire. Judges can ask question at any time before the deliberations are held. During
deliberations judges have to debate on whether or not they want to keep the proof presented for
the final judgement. This will be done in two times divided by time for additional questions in
order to clarify some elements that may cause doubts.
This will continue until both parties have exhausted their proofs and will be followed
by cross-examination in order to discredit and refute the other party’s proofs. These crossexaminations will work in the same way as with “normal” proofs.
The final deliberation will be held at the end of session. Judges will be asked to base
their decision solely on the proofs they previously accepted. They will end up writing a
condemnation that will either pardon the accused or condemn him.
II.
Lucius Malfoy
A. Biography
Lucius Malfoy (b. 1953 - 1954) was a pure-blood wizard, and son of Abraxas Malfoy,
husband of Narcissa Black and the father of Draco Malfoy. Lucius was educated at Hogwarts,
where he was sorted in Slytherin House and eventually made prefect. As an adult, Lucius was
an aristocratic wizard and patriarch of the Malfoy family, believing strongly in blood purity and
the superiority of pure-blood wizards. He thus joined the Death Eaters, who shared his views
on blood purity, and participated in the First Wizarding War.
The goals of the Dark Lord and the cause for which he was fighting were very much in
line with the beliefs the Malfoys for centuries had held in such high regard, and their influence
and notorious reputation made Lucius Malfoy a very valuable resource for the Dark Lord to
have at his disposal. Due to the high standing of the Malfoy family, Lucius was ideally
positioned to gain insight into the Ministry’s resources which he could rely to Voldemort and
the other Death Eaters. Rewarded by his usefulness and reliability, he found himself rising
rapidly through the ranks, until Voldemort at last bestowed upon him a position of leadership.
While a fierce supporter of the cause for which Lord Voldemort stood, he held little
loyalty for the man himself. When he at last stood before the court, Lucius pleaded his
innocence and claimed he had been acting under the influence of the Imperius Curse, although
his main course of action were to rely on his good family name, his excellent reputation in the
wizarding world and calling in favors from high-placed Ministry officials to win his freedom.
When Voldemort returned, Lucius once again served him as a Death Eater. Even though
Harry witnessed Malfoy's declaration of loyalty to Voldemort, almost nobody in the Ministry
believed him and Malfoy continued maintaining strong ties to very high places in the Ministry,
most prominently in the form of financial support, as has been in the past.
He led the efforts to obtain the prophecy Voldemort sought. In the battle that ensued,
known as the Battle of the Department of Mysteries, the prophecy was destroyed, and Lucius
and his comrades were imprisoned in Azkaban in 1996 after being captured on 24 June 1995.
Although Voldemort broke them out of prison in 1997 after Dumbledore was killed, he was
displeased with Lucius for his failures and treated the Malfoys with disdain. Lucius remained a
Death Eater but was abused by Voldemort for his failure, he defected at the end of the Second
Wizarding War.
B. Reasons for trial
The Death Eaters first existed more or less a decade before the events of the books,
torturing and murdering Muggles as well as anyone who opposed them. They also did this to
people who they considered to be blood traitors (pureblood wizards who sympasithed with
Muggles and Muggle-born). When the Seer, Sybill Trelawney made a prophecy about a boy
who would have the power to defeat Voldemort forever, Voldemort attempted to complete the
prophecy and kill his infant rival. Due to Harry's mother's sacrifice to save her son, Voldemort's
deadly curse rebounded off Harry and disembodied Voldemort.
With the Dark Lord vanquished after failing to kill Harry, the Death Eaters largely
disbanded. The Ministry rounded many of them up and imprisoned them in the Wizarding
prison Azkaban, but some eluded justice by claiming they were bewitched by the Imperius
Curse (This is what Lucius Malfoy chose to do) or by turning in other Death Eaters, as Igor
Karkaroff did. It appears that very few Death Eaters stood for their fallen master and proudly
went to Azkaban for him (this is the case of Bellatrix Lestrange and the Lestrange brothers),
since, in the sixth book, Snape states that if Voldemort had refused to welcome back all those
who turned their backs on him when he fell, then he would have very few followers. The
Lestranges are the only Death Eaters known to have willingly sacrificed their freedom for
Voldemort.
There are numerous reasons as to why Lucius Malfoy is to be tried in front of the
Wizengamot. For some time, he was known as one of the most influential Death Eaters. He also
was the one who gave Tom Riddle’s school diary to Ginny Weasley. Furthermore, he threatened
school governors, attempted to attack Harry Potter after losing his house-elf, Dobby. He also
tortured a Muggle family and participated in a violent rampage at the Quidditch World Cup. He
was present during He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's rebirth. He placed Order of the Phoenix
member Sturgis Podmore and Department of Mysteries employee Broderick Bode under the
Imperius Curse to attempt to capture the prophecy for his master. Finally he was the leader in
the operation in the Department of Mysteries, and later escaped Azkaban after the latter crime
on top of numerous known counts of bribery. (For further information go to Wikipedia page on
Death Eaters). III.
The wizarding world and law
The laws of the wizarding world could be considered as vague at the most, as there are very
few traces of those laws appearing in either the books or the film. However, we can consider
that the wizarding world’s justice system was formally separated from that of the muggle world
in 1692, according to the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy. Thus, the bedrock of the
wizarding world is its secret from the muggle’s world. The statute also provides for the
existence of a national agency responsible for the regulation of each nation’s wizarding
community. Such agencies could be The Ministry of Magic in Britain or the Magical Congress
of the United States of America in the U.S. In Britain, there are a number of legislation
reinforcing this secrecy, the most important being The Decree for the Reasonable Restriction
of Underage Sorcery of 1875, which severely punishes the use of magic by underage wizards
in muggle environment or without parental approval. As regards to the practice of magic by
full-fledged wizards, the regulation turns rather weak. It is presumed, however, that there are
legislations prohibiting the use of unforgivable curses. It is at this point where we arrive at the
core problem of the British wizarding world: the problem of separation of powers.
The Ministry of Magic seems to be responsible for all of the powers; it creates and abolishes
legislation at its whim, enforces compliance of those legislations and judges the breach of law.
At the time of the accused, Lucius Malfoy, use of the curses in the second wizarding war, the
Ministry was under the control of Voldemort, who had the prohibition of the use unforgivable
curses lifted. It is presumed that the regime of common law also applies to the wizarding world,
albeit it is the wizarding community itself that judges its members. There are some observable
reservations, however, as The Ministry of Magic is not troubled by sentencing convicted
criminals to Azkaban, where the mere presence of dementors would easily qualify for cruel and
inhumane punishment according to common law.
IV. General context
For the sake of the trial, it will be implied that this trial is taking place right after the
Second wizarding world. The defense can use the arguments used in the books during the trial
that has already taken place but it should not be the core of their defense speech. Everything
canon that happened until then is considered to have taken place and can be used during
Court.
References
https://legacy.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/lucius.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Eater
https://www.pottermore.com/
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lucius_Malfoy
https://www.oxford-royale.co.uk/articles/harry-potter-law.html
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Unforgivable_Curses
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Ministry_of_Magic
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/International_Statute_of_Wizarding_Secrecy
https://www.hp-lexicon.org/thing/decree-for-the-reasonable-restriction-of-underage-sorcery/
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Wizengamot_Charter_of_Rights
https://lawblog.justia.com/2010/11/18/introduction-to-wizarding-law/
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue4/authoritylawjustice/
Introduction
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international court created in
2002. Its mission is to investigate, prosecute and judge any person accused of committing the
worst crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The court was
envisioned in 1998, per the Rome Statute, which laid out its structure, composition, function
and jurisdiction. The statute is currently signed by 121 parties out of the 193 member states of
the UN. It should be noted that even though the UN could ask the ICC to examine any dossier
from the UN, it is completely independent from the UN. The central role of the ICC in the
international community has led to its simulation in many MUNs even though technically it is
independent from the UN. The rules of procedure which is to be used is largely based on that
of the ICC, and is adapted for simulation purposes.
Section I
The Judges
Being a judge is very different from being a delegate in MUNs. Judges do not seek to find
a compromise or defend their convictions, interests or beliefs; they simply apply the law,
regardless of the political or other consequences.
The judges must, during the procedure, listen to arguments and proofs brought forth by
each party in the case. They seek the truth and inconsistencies in each argument and proofs by
further asking questions. At the end of the case, they retire to deliberate in secret in order to
reach a verdict. If the judges could not unanimously agree on the legal reasoning regarding the
case, the majority of the judges hands down the verdict. The minority could, if they wish, write
a dissent explaining their convictions which could be used for future cases.
During the case, there are two important parts to consider. The first being to discern facts.
In case the court is comprised by juries, it is the duty of the jury to discern them. The Second
is to determine the legal question or rationale behind the case. This part falls into the hands of
the judges. As the ICC is made up only by judges and no jury, both duties fall into the hands
of judges. It is then your task to do both by listening to both the prosecution and the defence,
distinguish facts from any inconsistencies and take legal action according to legal texts.
During this court case, judges are called “Your Honour” or “Elder surname”
As a judge, taking notes are imperative to the functioning of the court. Even though the
Wizengamot has its own court scribe, it is strongly advised that the judges take their own
notes. During the deliberation phrase of the case, it is more or less impossible to remember
every detail of the proof given to you by both the prosecution and the defence. As each judge
must be independent, borrowing notes from other judges seriously hampers your ability to
perform autonomously.
The judges must be impartial. Thus, judges must not have any bias concerning the case in
hand or refer to any real-life (in this case, fictional) judgements rendered by the real ICC
(Wizengamot). It is not the role of the judge to master the case beforehand, as it is the
prosecution and the defence’s task. It is the lawyer’s duty to completely understand the case
and convince the judges with their arguments, swaying the court’s opinion. It is also
recommended that the judges do not contact neither the defence nor the prosecution before the
simulation. Finally, do not hold any prejudice against the case, as the outcome of the case can
rarely be decided before the commencement of the court.
Section II
The lawyers: The Prosecutors and The Defence
I)
Proofs
The Prosecutors and the Defence are perhaps, by far, the most important members in this
simulation. In view of this primordial task, there would be two members of the defence and
two members of the prosecution working. Each “team” of lawyers are suggested to work in
conjunction with one another. Essentially, it is recommended that the both the defence and
the prosecution prepare the court case with their respective partners before the
conference.
The prosecution possesses the burden of proof, or onus probandi. It is their duty to
convince the judges that the accused is, beyond any doubt, responsible for the crimes they are
charged with. The defence then has to prove that the accused is innocent or they are
inconsistencies which could lead to reasonable doubt in the case. The prosecution must point
out both two following criteria
•
That the crimes have taken place
•
That the defendant is culpable for the crimes in question
The defendant, in turn, must point out that
•
Either the crimes they are charged with did not happen or break any laws
•
Either accept that the crimes did happen but the defendant is not responsible for the
crimes
In order to convince the judges, both parties must present proofs to the court. There are
two types of proofs: evidence and witness.
A) Evidences
Evidences are proofs that are tangible in nature, such as documents, letters,
correspondences, reports, excerpt of a discussion, videos, etc. Objects that are related to the
case could be presented as evidence. It should be noted that official, reliable reports from
prestigious or credible sources are viewed more favourably than those which lacks
credibility. For example, a report from Human Rights Watch is more credible than a news
article, which might lack objectivity. Each evidence submitted must be verified for its
authenticity; the author, dates and origin of the evidence must be specified beforehand.
It is important to give the evidence in its original form. For example, if the report
containing a page of essential proof related to the case is ten pages long, the entire original
report of ten pages must be submitted as evidence to the court. The same goes for videos.
However, considering that the simulation is constrained by time, fastidiously long videos or
documents should be avoided. If it is indispensable, present only the part which relates directly
to the case.
In case that the original document is in a foreign language other than English, the original
document must be presented to the court, accompanied by a translation. The name of the
translator, and if possible, date of translation, must be presented to the court. If an official
version of the translation exists, it is preferable to use that version. If there is no official
translation, the lawyers have to ask someone outside of the ICC simulation to translate it for
them. In the worst-case scenario, use either online translation or translate the document
yourself. But try to avoid this when possible.
B) Witnesses
Witnesses are persons who participate in the simulation by directly giving accounts of the
case. Each party of the case, the defence and the prosecution, has their own list of witness that
the court could call upon. Considering time constraints, there should only be two or three
witness per party. The court would grant right to each party to call upon their witnesses and
ask them questions related to the case. After the party calling their witness has exhausted their
questions, the judges and the opposing party could then ask further questions if they wish to do
so. Due to the nature of the simulation, witnesses are considered inferior to evidences.
All witnesses in the Wizengamot are considered as “fictional”. The LyonMUN team will
prepare a group of staff to simulate as witness in this case. As the defence and the prosecution
arrive at the conference, they will have the opportunity to prepare the case with their designated
“witness”.
II)
Stipulations
Stipulations are written in conjunction by both the prosecution and the defence. It is to
summarise the points which both parties agree upon before the conference. The stipulation
contains legal texts relevant to the case, events which both parties agreed have taken place,
documents both parties accept, etc. This permits the case and the simulation to be faster, the
court does not have to waste any time pointing out the facts both the prosecution and the
defence already agreed upon. Both parties must be absolutely certain that they agree by these
stipulations. It must be written in the format
“The Prosecution and The Defence stipulates the following: (1) That… ; (2) That… ; etc.”
III)
Memorandums
Each party of the case must write a Memorandum. A Memorandum is a document which
outlines the vision of the prosecution and the defence respective to the case. Memorandums
must not divulge all the strategies which the prosecution or the defence wishes to use in the
case, but rather their point of view regarding the case. Think of it as your position paper, with
enough information in order to sway the judges who will read it, but not enough that the other
party could destroy your case. There is no definitive format to follow, but in general, it must
cover the following:
“Prepared by “name” and “name”, The prosecution/defence in the trial of Lucius Malfoy.
•
The legal problem of the case
•
Texts or other proofs concerning the case that you will use, but not your strategy
•
Photos, passages, citations, etc.
•
Closing phrases which affirms your convictions”
The memorandum should not exceed 1000 words.
Section III
Court Proceedings
a) The first phrase of the procedure is the opening statement by the prosecution. They
would attempt to outline the situation from their perspective and the charges they bring
against the defendant. The prosecution would then proceed to present to the court the
complete written list of accusations against the defendant. This opening statement
should not last more than five minutes. After the prosecution has presented their list to
the court, the defence will also conduct their opening statement, which follows a similar
format but without laying any charges to the defendant.
b) After the opening statement, the prosecution would present their complete list of proofs
against the defendant. For simulation purposes, due to time constraints, each item on
the list must be numbered according to the importance of the proofs. At this moment,
the defence could also present their own list or wait until the court has decided to move
to the defence’s list.
c) Each of the prosecution’s proof is then examined one by one. Evidences will be
examined according to their ranking on the list. Witnesses, for practical reasons, could
be called in after consulting with the chairs and when situation permits.
i. In case the proof is an evidence: The prosecution would then give a speech
linking the proof to the case at hand. The defence, at any given moment, could
interrupt the prosecution to ask relevant questions by shouting “Objection!”
aloud. The presidency could overrule the objection if the question is not
substantive or the time does not permit the interruption. After the prosecution
has given the speech to link the evidence to the case, the defence would then
take the floor to give their speech regarding the evidence. The prosecution
would then be able shout “Objection!” to ask questions to the defence. After
both the prosecution and the defence have made their speeches, judges could
then ask further questions to the prosecution or the defence.
ii. In case the proof is a witness: The prosecution must obtain an assent from the
presidency to call in witnesses to the court. The prosecution then asks the
witness in a direct manner before the court. The questions asked by the
prosecution cannot be leading. For example, it is not possible to ask the witness
“Did you see Lord Voldermort murder Harry Potter’s parents?” Rather, the
questions should be “What did you see Lord Voldermort do to Harry Potter’s
parents?”. After the prosecution has asked all the necessary questions to the
witness, it is for the defence to ask further questions. As the witness is from the
opposing party, questions can be asked in a leading manner. This will continue
until both parties have exhausted their questions to the witness.
d) After the court has gone through the prosecution’s list of proofs, it is for the defence to
present their own proofs. Each of the defence’s proof is examined one by one. The
procedures are similar in nature to the last step with the prosecution and the defence
switching roles.
e) The court, after deliberating on the proofs, hears both the prosecution and the defence
for the last time in their closing speech. Each party recalls the facts which were revealed
during the proceedings and summarises the case, as well as their last arguments and
remarks in favour of their position. The closing speech should not be longer than 15
minutes.
f) When both the prosecution and the defence has finished presenting all their evidences,
witnesses, and closing speech, the judges retire into a closed session. It is at this
moment when the judges debate on the merits of each argument with one another in
order to reach a verdict. At this phrase of the court, no one is allowed to enter the
deliberation room except for the judges, LyonMUN staffs and university officials. The
majority of the judges then write an official verdict for the case which will be available
for the public.