LOL
Are you going to explain what that triumphant yes is about?
A private joke and bet.
Based on my mantra "You press this button here and that motor over there fires up".
In general terms I am being serious not having a larf.
The question posed in the thread title relates to "not fit for purpose". The expression has a specific meaning in English law. God knows whether or not there is a Portuguese equivalent.
To demonstrate "not fit for purpose" in England and Wales there are two options.
1) Prove that a contract with a fit for purpose obligation existed between two parties also proving that the imposed duty of result wrt the fit for purpose obligation was breached.
2) Show under the common law that the Bolam Test was failed:
"The test is essentially a peer review of the professional’s behaviour. If others would have acted in a similar way, then the professional is unlikely to have breached his duty of care".One poster has objected to my use of AC Rowley accepting the original investigation in my narrative. As this was never the main plank of my argument I am quite content, in the interests of furthering the debate, to strike that comment.
Here we go:
snip >>>
So what is “fitness for purpose” wrt an investigation? Who has an obligation to whom, what is that obligation, what is the expected result and what penalty is there for failure to achieve the result?
It is hard to see any contract existed between parties in this instance so:
In UK law the common law imposes on a professional person a standard of reasonable skill and care but specifically he/she is not required to guarantee results. Ref: The Bolam Test.
With The Bolam Test in mind, one would need to demonstrate that another investigative team working in a similar field would have found the actions of the original team unacceptable in order to sustain an unfit for purpose claim. The only proper measure we have of that is from the AC of The Metropolitan Police Service, Mr Rowley, who indicated he was content to rely on the original investigation.
The onus on the person making the "not fit for purpose" claim remains the same and as defined in 1 & 2 above.
Caveat. I hold no brief for the PJ or Sr Amaral. I am just advising what "not fit for purpose" means and what you have to do to prove "not fit for purpose" under English law.
Of course if you want to play ersatz, Humpty Dumpty, pretendy "not fit for purpose" then that's different.
