The trainee doctor who posted a Liam Neeson quote on Facebook and had his course of studies terminated has now appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. According to his solicitor, Mr. Michael Charles of specialist law firm Sinclairslaw, a notice has now been filed with the Court of Appeal which if successful, might not only overturn the decision of the High Court but is likely to highlight what he says are “serious deficiencies in the current ombudsman scheme”. Mr Thilakawardhana’s case was heavily shared across social media following the High Court’s decision due to his use of the popular ‘taken’ meme, but the facts of the case are not as widely known. Mr Thilakawardhana sent the meme, alongside a heated Facebook message, when rebuking a friend for distributing explicit naked pictures of a mutual female friend. The message and meme were captured by screenshot and given to his University who subsequently terminated his fourth year of training in medicine at Leicester Medical School. His termination occurred despite the University of Leicester disciplinary officer, who investigated and interviewed the parties on behalf of the University, finding that his actions only warranted a reprimand and some social media training. Despite this recommendation, the Medical School went on to investigate the matter again, without interviewing both parties, and instead imposed in the context of deciding his fitness to practice, the most severe sanction available to them by terminating his studies and effectively ending his medical career without giving detailed reasons. The student’s argument that such a decision was wholly disproportionate and unfair, particularly when the recipient of the message called for the student’s reinstatement, was dismissed by the High Court, which went on to say that the Court should be slow to interfere with the Ombudsman decision because it is “a speedy” and “cost effective” process. His solicitor, Mr. Charles, said “speed and cost should never be prioritised over justice. The Ombudsman is not equipped to properly address issues that require live evidence or discrete points of law. As a reviewing body it rarely hears live evidence and unlike a court would be slow to make findings of fact on the evidence. I am of the opinion that this appeal will highlight the shortcomings of the ombudsman schemes (in this instance the OIA) particularly in cases where the sanctions are career ending or equally severe.” The case also highlights the dangers of social media. Mr. Charles added “I am sure there are many professionals throughout this country who, when a student, may have made unwise and rash decisions that later in life they are not proud of. The many mistakes people make are part of growing up and they are mistakes we learn from. The idea that students have always behaved soundly and with the highest professional standards at all times is simply a fantasy. I am sure many professionals may have done or said something in the past as an immature student/pupil that on the facts of this case may have equally put their professionalism into doubt. Thankfully for those individuals, those indiscretions historically remained private. For students today, social media has placed a spotlight on private conversations and has turned them into a public forum. How many working people in this country today can accurately recall private conversations, with the benefit of hindsight, they would consider regrettable? This case is in relation to an argument that existed between friends and in respect of the unacceptable treatment afforded to their mutual friend. How many people, when in a heightened emotional state, can honestly say that they always think and speak rationally? Should our professions today adjudge people particularly students in such heat-of-the-moment situations and close their minds to true and usual human behaviour? People are quick to judge students for speaking their mind on Facebook and believe that students such as my client deserve such extreme consequences for what was an angry statement to a friend. Those people should appreciate that social media technology is as new to students as it is to the rest of us. Even a few years ago, it would be hard to imagine how face to face comments which would have been forgotten shortly after they were said could have lifelong consequences. My client has never acted like this before but now he is faced with 4 successful years of medical school and a lifetime’s ambition of being a doctor, being thrown away because of a rash comment. This cannot be fair or right. The case also highlights the growing trend of shifting important responsibilities and powers from the courts to the ombudsman scheme. In this country there are around 50 different ombudsman-type schemes that supervise many professions and businesses. The quality of those judgments should always be subject to the careful scrutiny of our judicial system to prevent injustice. The ombudsman scheme has its weaknesses and is not, for example, equipped to address conflicts in evidence that may be before it and may also lack the specialism of a regulatory body (as it does here) to properly decide such cases. What’s more, many people who use the scheme are in some instances obliged to do so, as they cannot use the court procedure when there is an ombudsman scheme available. This prevents them from accessing a proper remedy. Often these schemes do not even permit oral legal representation. People are in this country now often having to utilise an ombudsman scheme in circumstances where the courts would be clearly more appropriate, convenient expeditious and effective. If the stakes are high, and the issues raise discrete points of law, how can a non legally qualified person be forced to argue points of law before an equally unqualified body. That can not be convenient, cost effective or expeditious. This trend is imposing a very real and significant danger, diluting the quality of justice in this country”. It was argued, before the High Court, that the Ombudsman did not condemn the University for failing to give proper reasons as to why they chose the most severe sanction in the circumstances. The High Court, when addressing this question, considered that the Court should be slow to interfere with the Ombudsman’s judgment irrespective of whether adequate reasons were given. If successful this case will raise an important point, namely that when an ombudsman scheme is entrusted to address matters of such seriousness, they should be under a heightened duty to provide proper reasons. Failing which justice can never be properly and fairly achieved. Accordingly, this is a case that is in the public interest and the fact that this case has made world-wide news, capturing the public’s imagination, clearly proves this fact.