         |
Background to the Suspension of Dr Raj Mattu
55. On 18 September 2002, Dr Mattu was eventually given the opportunity to defend his position for the first time. He presented the Trust with a further 105 page statement to rebut the two statements to which he was now required to respond.
56. The Trust abandoned this meeting in order that they may consider Dr Mattu's written statement before proceeding. They promised to reconvene in order to complete the inquiry meeting.
57. At this meeting, Dr Harrison also agreed to interview ALL witnesses put forward by Dr Mattu and asked for a list of witnesses for that purpose. Dr Harrison departed for leave until 8 October 2002.
58. The Trust has since refused to contact all of Dr Mattu's primary witnesses and failed to interview about half of them.
59. It has emerged that 9 out of 10 witnesses that the Trust has interviewed, have had their evidence seriously distorted by the Trust Management in Trust summaries, causing the witnesses to raise objections. The Trust's distortion has always been in a manner that undermines Dr Mattu's position.
60. Despite strenuous objections by the interviewed witnesses and Dr Mattu's solicitors, the Trust insists on proceeding with its intention to use the Trust's account of the evidence supplied by the witnesses. The position of the witnesses concurs with that of Dr Mattu and his solicitor, that the summaries produced by the Trust cannot be considered and that the witnesses' own produced summaries alone must be regarded as the witness evidence
61. It is noteworthy that the Trust Chairman, Mr Bryan Stoten, has involved himself in these matters, but chooses to constantly claim that he has no knowledge of the matter and is not able to get involved.
62. Mr Stoten was appointed in November 2001 and addressed the consultant body in December 2001, and openly declared that there would be no further suspensions of consultants without his knowledge and prior agreement.
63. In December 2001 Mr Stoten called a meeting with Dr Mattu and insisted on the presence of Dr LJ Booth, despite Dr Mattu's repeated and clear request for Dr Booth not to be present. Dr Booth refused to leave and stayed throughout. During this meeting Mr Stoten was dismissive of Dr Mattu's contention of being victimised and intimidated by Mr Loughton, Dr S Evans and Mr Burley, and claimed that he did NOT accept that any consultants were being bullied. He demanded evidence to support this assertion.
64. Mr Stoten claimed that on the contrary, it was the consultants who were responsible for the bullying in the Trust and that this had also been borne out in the CHI report. He refused to accept the opposite view or even that CHI had not supported his claim.
65. Mr Stoten threatened that he would not tolerate Trust staff talking to the media and demanded to know who had leaked information to the Birmingham Post, about the findings of the Royal College of Surgeons regarding colo-rectal surgery. Dr Mattu denied any involvement in or knowledge about this report being leaked.
On behalf of Dr Raj Mattu Reinstatement Committee,
PO Box 2912, Coventry. CV1 3YX
