         |
31st July 2003
Mrs Alice Casey
Chief Operating Officer, Walsgrave Hospital
Dear Mrs Casey,
I was interested in reading your letter dated 29th July 2003 and curious about your reasons for intervening and intruding in matters that I had explicitly raised, specifically, with the Chief Executive of our NHS Trust. Let me also assure you that had I been interested in your opinion on these matters, particularly regarding the actions and conduct of the Chief Executive, I would have been perfectly capable of asking for it. The fact that I had not must surely be self-explanatory. Nonetheless, since you have taken it upon yourself to answer for Mr Roberts regarding his own actions, I am obliged to ask you to clarify your standing in the matter, and to progress some of the issues that you have now personally raised.
Let me make it absolutely clear from the outset that I do not accept your reply and intrusion into the specific correspondence and matters between the Chief Executive and I, and I will still expect Mr Roberts to respond properly to my letters dated 14th June (x2), 14th July, 15th July and 24th July on his return from holiday.
It is abundantly clear from your vague letter that you manifest poor attention to detail. You neither clarify exactly what correspondence you are responding to, the specific details and questions to which you are retorting and the basis for your proffered remarks. Had you read my correspondence properly, and managed to comprehend the detail and nature of the issues, you might not have considered yourself best placed or empowered to explain the conduct of the Chief Executive, unless of course you are claiming responsibility for his actions. Could you please advise about this, and also whether you hold the authority to provide formal responses of this nature on behalf of the Chief Executive. Did you get his permission to do so here?
It is regrettable that, similar to our Trust Chairman, you also demonstrate obvious deficiencies in communicating effectively with the community, and a worrying disregard for the local population that our Trust serves. You make the silly remark "You will appreciate that the Trust is not accountable to the Dr Raj Mattu reinstatement committee on a day-by-day basis." This comment was totally unnecessary, patronisingly hostile, and falsely implies a ridiculous expectation on the part of the local community. However I will remind you of the recent efforts by our elected representatives in Westminster to make the actions of the Trust Executive and Non-Executive Board, accountable as a public authority to the local stakeholders.
The local community has every right and justification in demanding honest and full replies when they have overwhelming evidence of failures in our Trust regarding Management and Clinical Governance, adherence to due process, guarantee of equal opportunities, racial discrimination, persecution, inaccuracy of information, false claims etc. The local community is following due process and giving the Trust fair opportunity to explain such improper irregularities. Are you claiming otherwise? The trust is accountable to good governance not only day-day but min-min.
Had you manifest better comprehension, you would have understood that there are only two issues under discussion in the correspondence (detailed above) between the Chief Executive and I, to which I invite him to provide me honest and complete answers. The first is regarding claims and accusations that Mr Roberts and the Chairman have made, and the second regarding clarification of the procedures deployed in the investigation of Dr Raj Mattu, especially relating to the Chief Executive's and the Chairman's roles and actions, particularly with respect to assessment of whether due process has been followed.
Let me therefore assure you that the local "body of citizens" fully understand the restrictions that govern such enquiries and the related implications. Contrary to your claim, it is clear that it is you who has failed to understand or grasp the fact that the matters under discussion do not relate to the details of Dr Mattu's case, and that therefore your claim "To respond to correspondence of the type sent by you, in detail, whilst matters are in process could be very much in breach of our legal duties" is false, wholly irrelevant and misleading.
Your current unfounded and misleading claims heighten unease amongst the local community, as they contradict your earlier actions involving lengthy and detailed remarks to the Coventry Evening Telegraph on 4th February 2003 regarding the investigative procedures related to Dr Mattu's case, raising the possibility that your remarks may not be solely explained by incompetence as there may be sinister underlying reasons. Could you please explain your disregard for purportedly being "very much in breach of our legal duties" on 4th February.
You have made the misleading claim that the Trust has pursued the investigation of Dr Mattu "fully in accordance with the legal requirements of this Trust". Your explicit remarks inherently accuse Dr Mulrooney of having lied in the Coventry Evening Telegraph on 3rd July 2003, when he claimed:
§ He "quit over Mattu conspiracy"
§ "he had a catalogue of complaints regarding
discrepancies in Dr Mattu's case and the issues
surrounding it"
§ "the investigation into allegations of harassment
against cardiologist Dr Mattu is unsound and that
disciplinary processes have been invented to deal with
the complaint"
Your very serious assertion also contradicts the many known examples arising from the Trust's mistreatment of Dr Mattu, involving failure to follow due process, breaches of contract by the Trust, and the blatant racial discrimination he has suffered and continues to suffer, even after the Executive and Non-Executive members of the Trust Board have been alerted to the problem. Could you please confirm whether you are claiming that Dr Mulrooney has lied?
You overtly threaten litigation against the Dr Raj Mattu Reinstatement Committee, and use this as the excuse for your unwillingness to provide a full and frank reply. Our position is clearly laid out in our letters of 14th June and 15th July, and we welcome your purported "possible" challenge. However, your feeble excuse for not providing truthful and complete replies in the meantime is not accepted as being compliant with your duties.
Ironically, your response appears to be focussed around the duties of the Trust, yet the contents of your reply expose your failure to understand those duties. The Trust has a duty of care to Dr Mattu and the local community, provide equal opportunities, ensure against discrimination, allow dignity to attend at the workplace etc. However, the Trust has failed to fulfil these duties along with many more, yet, you hypocritically abuse obligations to duty and the law to justify what can best be described as ill-informed groundless claims.
There is full support for your assertion in your penultimate paragraph "that if we receive accusations in writing, from whatever source, about members of the staff of this Trust then we have a duty to forward such accusations to them allowing them to consider an appropriate response". However, I am curious as to why you have informed me of this specific Trust Policy and contractual duty of care to your staff, since Dr Mattu is the only Trust employee named in my correspondence. I cannot assume you have forwarded all correspondence to Dr Mattu, so I have taken the liberty of assisting you and done this, as I am totally agreeable to it.
However, you expose yet further indisputable evidence of the dreadful discrimination to which you and other members of the Trust have subjected Dr Mattu. You will understand why consequently I must formally ask you to therefore explain why this "duty" to your staff was not afforded to Dr Mattu, when the Trust received written accusations against him.
It is widely known that written accusations against Dr Mattu were in the possession of the Trust by the end of May 2002. The Trust refused "to forward such accusations to them allowing them to consider an appropriate response", and only agreed to release two of the written statements to Dr Mattu over 3 months later, and only after Dr Mattu had been forced to instruct his lawyers to obtain them.
To date, Dr Mattu has still not been given sight of over 10 statements, many of which contain accusations. These deplorable persecutory actions by the Trust manifest blatant discrimination that denied Dr Mattu his right "to consider an appropriate response". This discriminatory failure by the Trust to fulfil your expressed declaration of duty to Dr Mattu reveals the strongly biased and prejudicial nature of the investigation that he was provided by the Trust, where Dr Mattu was being forced to respond to accusations whilst being denied his rights and prevented from having sight of the written accusations.
Further evidence for failure to adhere to due process also arises from breaking with these very duties that you have yourself described, relating to a forged e-mail emanating from the Trust to a Medical Equipment Company, Cordis. About 8 months ago the Trust Management became aware of a forged e-mail that had fraudulently claimed Dr Mattu as the author. The Senior Medical Staff Committee discussed this matter and wrote to Mr Roberts in February 2003, asking that this e-mail be forwarded to Dr Mattu. Mr Roberts has failed to reply to the Senior Medical Staff Committee and also to adhere to your expressed duty to Dr Mattu "to forward such accusations to them allowing them to consider an appropriate response". I must formally ask you why Dr Mattu has not been afforded your claimed duty of care, which Trust staff are supposedly entitled to, and been forwarded the e-mail. This forgery, using Dr Mattu's name, was clearly intended to undermine his reputation and implicate him in improper actions, and is a very serious and sinister act. Could you also advise about whether the Trust has undertaken a vigorous investigation into this forgery, the findings of any investigation, and whether the Trust has notified the Police?
Having taken considerable time to afford you a detailed and honest reply to your unsolicited letter, I expect full, frank and truthful replies from you by return.
Yours truthfully,
Brian King
For the Dr Raj Mattu Reinstatement Committee
Cc: Dr Raj Mattu, Trust Board, A Blair, I
Duncan-Smith, C Kennedy, Dr J Reid, Dr Liam Fox, R
Ainsworth, G Robinson, J Cunningham, A King, W Olner, M
O'Brien, C Spellman, J Plaskitt, J Maples, Councillors,
Sir Nigel Crisp, NHS Appointments Commission
