James Greig’s article (The Gareth Thomas case proves it: no one wins when an HIV transmission fight goes to court, 7 February) says that “it is regrettable that such a popular figurehead [Gareth Thomas] found himself at the centre of a legal controversy”. The message seems to be that Thomas’s ex-partner Ian Baum, who was represented by our law firm, should never have brought his claim; he should have just kept quiet.
The article suggests that Baum was just “unlucky”. The impact on his health aside, we are duty bound to state that it was Baum’s case that he only sought to get tested for HIV because he discovered Thomas’s antiviral medication. If he hadn’t, he may have gone on to unknowingly pass it on to others.
Baum was not just “unlucky”. His life and health have been severely affected. If even some of the sympathy that Thomas enjoys from his fans and supporters could be shared with Baum, the world would be a kinder place. Indeed, it is my view that if Thomas – who settled the case with no admission of liability – had treated Baum with love, respect and kindness, this may have all been avoided.
Following the Terence Higgins Trust’s declaration of unequivocal support for Thomas, Baum wrote to them to ask what support they could give him. They coldly dismissed him with the advice: call our confidential helpline.
When that call was made, the operator was given the exact same information that Baum had previously given by letter. The only difference was that no names were mentioned. The advice they gave Baum, in line with that published on their own website: file a criminal complaint. What a difference celebrity seems to make.
Matthew Jury
Managing partner, McCue Jury & Partners
