Something always bothered me with Fudge's accusations:
“Disciplinary hearing of the twelfth of August,” said Fudge in a ringing voice, and Percy began taking notes at once, “into offences committed under the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery and the International Statute of Secrecy by Harry James Potter, resident at number four, Privet Drive, Little Whinging, Surrey." - OotP Ch. 8 "The Hearing"
Harry cast the Patronus Charm, so he violated the Decree for Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery alright - extinuating circumstances aside - but how did he breach the Statute of Secrecy?
The only witnesses were Dudley and Mrs. Figg, both of whom already knew that Harry is a wizard. Earlier, even Hermione gets it wrong (don't tell her!):
They haven’t even reported that you broke the International Statute of Secrecy. We thought they would,... - OotP Ch. 4 "#12"
Yes, Harry does use magic in front of a Muggle, Dudley, but even Dudley is not so thick that the fact that Harry's a wizard would come as a revelation to him. Harry cannot breach the Statute of Secrecy to someone already in the know.
Shouldn't Dumbledore point out that glaring error in the indictment sooner rather than later? Or at least mention it, at all?
Is there maybe a source that mentions the Statute of Secrecy containing a clause, that even the mere possibility of magic being witnessed by an uninitiated muggle is sufficient for its breach?? Cause if so, wouldn't even adult wizards have a really tough time doing anything, ever.