         |
Background to the Suspension of Dr Raj Mattu
66. In January 2002 Mr Stoten jointly briefed a number of local MPs and told them that he had read the Trust's large and voluminous file on Dr Mattu, and that it contained some very serious allegations. Mr Stoten revealed that the allegations included sexual assault, fraud and many other serious issues. He also notified them that the matter was so serious that he and the senior managers had decided to pass it on to the regional office and department of health.
67. It is noteworthy that despite the many serious allegations against Dr Mattu, including rape, that the Trust has not reported any of these the matters to the police.
68. It has become apparent that Mr Stoten has continued to similarly brief in the same damaging way about Dr Mattu to senior staff in the NHS, local council leaders and community leaders.
69. Also of note in January 2002, the previousChief Executive, David Loughton, privately described his efforts to senior consultants about recruiting the help of the Regional Health Authority and Department of Health in his plans against Dr Mattu.
70. He proceeded to also offer the Chairman Senior Hospital Medical Staff Committee 'friendly' advice, warning him to distance himself from Dr Mattu.
71. The Chairman Senior Hospital Medical Staff Committee informed Mr Loughton that he did not support either party, but was only interested in the just and fair pursuit of due process, to which Mr Loughton responded that the matter was beyond due process and had been passed all the way to the Chief Medical Officer (Professor Liam Donaldson), The Department of Health and The Regional Health Authority.
72. During the public part of the Trust Board meeting in May 2002, Mr Stoten was formally asked about the Trust's tendency to suspend Consultants and for an update on the suspension of Dr Mattu. The former Chief Executive became irritated and excitable and stated that the two Medical Directors present, Drs Harrison and Booth, would have to leave the meeting if suspensions were to be discussed.
73. Mr Stoten, Trust Chairman, interjected stating I know nothing, I have no wish to know anything, as I may be involved in the disciplinary procedure".
74. Mr Stoten's claims are not borne out by the facts as has specifically passed remarks about the suspension of Dr Mattu to a number of MPs, including Mr R Ainsworth. He has repeatedly claimed that the appalling delays in the process have been due to Dr Mattu, suggesting that the lengthy duration of his suspension has been the fault of Dr Mattu.
75. During Dr Mattu's suspension a number of complaints have been formally raised against a number of Trust Managers and establishment consultants, concerning victimisation, intimidation and bullying. These have included complaints against Dr S Evans, Mr G Burley, Professor Janet Powell and others. The complainants have included 4 of the 5 consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeons.
76. Mr Stoten has not sanctioned the suspension of any of these other staff, unlike his decision for Dr Mattu. Conversely, Mr Stoten has been aggressive and unsympathetic towards the consultants raising the complaints.
On behalf of Dr Raj Mattu Reinstatement Committee,
PO Box 2912, Coventry. CV1 3YX
