Bbg. Death by Email 7. Mental Health Act Query – Letter to Minister

I am contacting you in relation to an issue that has been brought to my attention by my constituent, Mr Martin Reynolds, concerning the practical application of the Mental Health Act in Wales.

This week, I met with Mr Reynolds to discuss his personal experience of being detained under the Mental Health Act.

In brief: While completing his civil engineering degree in 2008, Mr Reynolds identified that widely used coefficient tables in reinforced concrete design were not properly referenced to their original source material, notably the work of Dr Viktor Lewe (1915). He raised concerns at the time with the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) regarding both scholarly accuracy and potential unseen structural risks in concrete cylinders, but received no meaningful engagement and set the matter aside.

In 2023, he returned to Dr Lewe’s elastic theory work. He can now demonstrate that current risk assessments for nuclear containment structures are incomplete, and that the coefficient tables result in approximately 18–20% excess concrete being specified in construction. These tables are published by the Portland Cement Association, whose stated aim is to promote the use of Portland cement. Mr Reynolds therefore raised broader concerns about potential market manipulation through the control of engineering information.

An email from a Director at the ICE in 2023 thanked him for highlighting Dr Lewe’s contribution but stated the matter was closed. Mr Reynolds has since worked to present his findings in full technical context. He is currently preparing a PhD by portfolio in Civil Engineering with Professor Jiping Bai at the University of South Wales, Treforest. The ICE has now acknowledged Dr Lewe’s work and has promised further action and a response.

Over the five years of this research, Mr Reynolds repeatedly sought engagement from relevant authorities but received little meaningful response. As a dedicated professional with a strong sense of duty as an engineer, the ongoing frustration and lack of engagement caused him significant stress. This contributed to a deterioration in his mental wellbeing and formed part of the broader circumstances that led to his detention under the Mental Health Act.

Mr Reynolds believes the psychiatrists who assessed him prior to and during detention did not fully appreciate the technical merits of the material he presented. Some of his evidence-based views, grounded in historical elastic theory, were characterised as fixed delusions. This research — now being formally assessed at PhD level only months later — contributed to a diagnosis that included ‘with psychosis’. No assessing clinician appeared familiar with the relevant physical theories, and no independent technical review was sought.

Mr Reynolds is concerned that his case highlights a risk whereby legitimate, evidence-based technical inquiry may be pathologised by professionals who lack the specialist expertise to evaluate the material in context.

I fully appreciate that patients detained under the Mental Health Act may, in some circumstances, lack insight and require treatment without consent. However, in light of Mr Reynolds’ experience, I would be grateful for clarification on the following:

Does the current application of the Mental Health Act in Wales adequately protect an individual’s right to hold and express evidence-based technical beliefs?
Is the balance between managing perceived risk and respecting patient autonomy operating as intended in such cases?
Does guidance exist for clinicians on assessing highly technical claims during mental health evaluations? What safeguards are in place when clinicians may not possess the specialist expertise necessary to evaluate such claims, and when should independent expert input be sought?

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to your response.

Delyth Jewell AS/MS

Dirprwy Weinidog dros Ofal Cymdeithasol,

Iechyd Meddwl ac Iechyd Menywod Deputy Minister for Social Care,

Mental Health and Women’s Health

Ein cyf/Our ref DJ/05403/26

Dafydd Trystan Davies MS

MS for Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf

26 August 2026

Dear Dafydd,

Thank you for your letter of 15 July, on behalf of Mr Martin Reynolds, concerning the practical application of the Mental Health Act (MHA) in Wales. I was sorry to read about your constituent’s experience, and I understand how difficult this this must have been for him. I appreciate him taking the time to share his experience.

I am confident that the current application of the MHA in Wales adequately protects an individual’s rights to hold evidence-based beliefs. An individual will only be detained under the MHA if, following a Mental Health Act Assessment, health professionals consider that detention is necessary to protect the individual’s own health or safety, or to protect others.

A number of safeguards are in place, including the right to support from an advocate and the right to appeal to the Mental Health Tribunal for Wales. The Mental Health Act Code of Practice for Wales states that; Relevant professionals should determine whether a patient has a disorder or disability of the mind in accordance with good clinical practice and accepted standards of what constitutes such a disorder or disability. The fact that someone has a mental disorder is not sufficient grounds for compulsory measures to be taken under the Act. Care must be taken not to diagnose, or fail to diagnose, mental disorder on the basis of stereotypes or assumptions about people and/or a failure to appreciate cultural and social differences. What may be indicative of mental disorder in one person, given their background and individual circumstances, may not be indicative of mental disorder in another person. Difference should not be confused with disorder. No-one should be considered mentally disordered solely because of their political, religious or cultural beliefs, sexual orientation or gender identity, values, opinions or any other protected or personal characteristic alone.

If your constituent has any concerns with the care and treatment he has received, he may wish to draw his concerns to the attention of Cardiff and Vale University Health Board in accordance with the independent NHS Wales concerns process ‘Listening to People’. Details of how to make a complaint to the health board can be found at: Complaints – Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. The national citizen voice body Llais is also available to provide support and can be contacted at: Cardiff & The Vale | Llais.

Yours sincerely, Delyth Jewell

AS/MS Dirprwy Weinidog dros Ofal Cymdeithasol, Iechyd Meddwl ac Iechyd Menywod Deputy Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Women’s Health

Welsh Government Offices, Cathays Park, Cardiff. CF10 3NQ

Dafydd Trystan Davies MS
MS for Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf

Please forward to:

Delyth Jewell MS
Deputy Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Women’s Health
Ref: DJ/05403/26

Dear Deputy Minister,

Thank you for your letter of 26 August 2026 to Dafydd Trystan Davies MS, written on my behalf.

I am grateful that you acknowledged the difficulty of my experience. I must, however, ask you to address the questions that were actually put to you. Those questions concerned the application of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Code of Practice for Wales. They were not a request for advice on how to complain about an episode of hospital care.

The questions remain:

Whether the current application of the Act in Wales adequately protects an individual’s right to hold evidence-based, including highly technical, beliefs.
Whether the balance between managing risk and respecting patient autonomy is operating as intended.
Whether guidance exists on how clinicians are expected to assess highly technical claims as part of a mental health assessment.
What safeguards exist where the assessing clinicians do not themselves possess the specialist expertise needed to evaluate those claims.

Your letter restates, in general terms, that detention follows a Mental Health Act assessment and that advocates and the Tribunal are available. It then quotes paragraphs from Chapter 2 of the Code about stereotypes, cultural difference and protected characteristics. Those passages are important, but they do not answer the questions above.

In particular:

My concern is not that I was detained “solely because of” a protected characteristic. It is that technical engineering and scientific material was treated as delusional content without any independent examination of that material by a person competent to assess it.
The Code itself goes further than the extracts quoted. Immediately after the passage you cited, it states that beliefs, behaviours or actions which do not result from a disorder or disability of the mind are not a basis for compulsory measures, even if they appear unusual or cause alarm. The practical question is how that principle is applied when the belief is a specialist technical claim and the assessor has no expertise in that field.
Referring me to Cardiff and Vale University Health Board under “Listening to People” does not answer a question about national guidance and statutory safeguards. A health board complaints process can examine an individual episode of care. It cannot issue or amend the Code, nor can it determine whether current national practice is adequate. That sits with Welsh Ministers as administrators of the Act and authors of the Code.
For completeness, the Tribunal decision of 22 December 2025 related to detention under Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital. Signposting only to Cardiff and Vale therefore does not even identify the correct responsible body for that episode.

I accept that clinicians must assess risk and that unusual or firmly held ideas can form part of a wider clinical picture. I do not accept that confidence can be expressed in the present system without addressing the specific gap identified: the absence of guidance on how technical claims are to be tested, and the absence of a safeguard when the clinician is not qualified to test them.

I would therefore be grateful for a further reply that answers the four questions directly, including:

whether any written guidance exists for clinicians assessing highly technical or specialist claims;
if none exists, whether you will consider issuing such guidance, or commissioning a review of this point in the Code; and
what, if any, mechanism exists for obtaining independent expert input where a patient’s asserted beliefs fall outside ordinary psychiatric expertise.

I am not asking you to relitigate a clinical diagnosis in correspondence. I am asking you to address a question of law and guidance for which your office is responsible.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Reynolds

Oh dear, the Senedd is digging a very deep hole for itself. The minister is confident, and that’s enough apparently.

Dear Martin,

Thank you for getting in touch with us again.

We appreciate you taking the time to share your experiences and recognise the distress that this situation will have caused to you.

In their response to our query the minister stated that they are “confident that the current application of the MHA in Wales adequately protects an individual’s rights to hold evidence-based beliefs.” And that decisions will only be taken when they are assessed by medical professionals as being in a patient’s best interest.

We trust that clinicians are best placed to make decisions regarding their patient’s mental well-being through considering each individuals specific circumstances. Moreover, I do not feel as though there is scope for us to challenge the minister’s interpretation of the regulations.

I appreciate that this is not the response you had hoped for but if you wish to take this case further, I would suggest making a complaint with the health board.

Best regards,

Leon

Back to the Health Board…

Chief Executive
Concerns Team
Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board

Copied to:
Llais Cwm Taf Morgannwg

&
Dafydd Trystan Davies MS

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing under the NHS Wales concerns process, as directed.

On 26 August 2026 the Deputy Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Women’s Health, Delyth Jewell MS, replied to my Member of the Senedd and advised that any remaining concerns I had should be raised with the Health Board. On 2 September 2026 my MS’s office confirmed the same and closed its casework on that basis. I am therefore following the process I have been told to follow.

For accuracy: the Deputy Minister signposted Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales decision of 22 December 2025 records that I was then detained under section 2 at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital under the responsibility of Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. This concern is therefore addressed to you.

I am not asking the Health Board to re-hear the Tribunal case or to substitute its own view for the Tribunal’s findings of fact. I am asking the four questions that were put to the Welsh Government and have not yet been answered.

The questions

Does the current application of the Mental Health Act in Wales adequately protect an individual’s right to hold evidence-based, including highly technical, beliefs?
Is the balance between managing risk and respecting patient autonomy operating as intended?
Does any written guidance exist on how clinicians are expected to assess highly technical or specialist claims as part of a Mental Health Act assessment?
What safeguards exist where the assessing clinicians do not themselves possess the specialist expertise needed to evaluate those claims?

In my case, engineering and scientific material relating to the work of Viktor Lewe and associated coefficient tables was characterised as delusional content. I asked that this material be examined on its technical merits. This was not done, hence why I raise the questions.

What I need from you

Please say, plainly, which of the following applies:

the Health Board can answer questions 1–4 as a matter of local policy and practice, and will do so; or
the Health Board cannot answer them because they concern national application of the Act and the Code of Practice for Wales, which sit with Welsh Ministers.

If the second is the position, I ask only that you say so in writing. That will allow the questions to be returned to the Deputy Minister as national guidance issues, which is where they were first raised.

If you consider that any part of this is a local care concern you can investigate, I ask that you confine that investigation to process:

whether relevant technical information was considered;

why no attempt was made to obtain specialist input;

and how the reasoning was recorded.

I do not ask you to determine the validity of the underlying engineering work in my case.

I would be grateful for an acknowledgement and for confirmation of which complaints process applies to this correspondence, given the dates of the detention, and of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Reynolds

Date: 3rd September 2026

Attachments:

Letter sent to minister 15 July 2026 (no reference i.d.)
Deputy Minister letter, 26 August 2026, ref. DJ/05403/26
Copied below, Email from Dafydd Trystan Davies MS office, 2 September 2026

Dear Mr Reynolds,

Thank you for your correspondence.

The questions you have raised relate to matters within the remit of our Mental Health services. I have therefore shared your correspondence with the Mental Health team for their consideration and to determine whether they are able to provide a response to the four questions you have outlined.

Once the team has reviewed the information provided, they will respond directly regarding the points raised, where this is possible.

Thank you for your patience while this is being considered.

Kind regards,

Paul

Paul Jones

Swyddog Cymorth Cyswllt Cyngor Cleifion / Patient Advice Liaison Support Officer

UPDATE 13th Oct. Chased 3 times now,each time similar response

Dear Mr Reynolds,

Thank you for your email.

I am sorry to hear that you have not yet received a response from the relevant service. I can confirm that your enquiry has already been forwarded to the appropriate team for their consideration and response.

We have again highlighted your correspondence to the service and requested that they make contact with you as soon as possible.

Whilst we are unable to provide a specific timeframe for their response, we are hopeful that the service will be in touch with you shortly.

Thank you for your continued patience. If you have not heard from the service within the coming days, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Kind regards,

Paul

Paul Jones

Swyddog Cymorth Cyswllt Cyngor Cleifion / Patient Advice Liaison Support Officer

Worth noting that I received a phone call from an unnamed mental health professional who had in hand all my requests for response emails. He seemed to believe that me asking questions was a sign that I was mentally unwell. I assured him this was not the case. This was last week, say around 27th Oct. I took this as sabre rattling, ie, if I keep pushing the threat of section will be raised over me again.

I finally got a response, 3 months later. Note I sent 5 reminders regarding their promise to respond before I got this

Good morning, Mr Reynolds

Please see below response received from the mental health directorate manager.

Dear Mr Reynolds,

Thank you for your correspondence and for setting out your questions regarding the application of the Mental Health Act in Wales.

The Health Board can provide clarification regarding how the Mental Health Act, the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales and associated safeguards are applied within our services. Questions concerning the overall adequacy of the legislation or national policy are matters for Welsh Government.

The Code of Practice makes clear that assessments should be undertaken in accordance with good clinical practice and accepted standards. It also emphasises that difference should not be confused with disorder, and that care should be taken not to make a diagnosis based on stereotypes or assumptions.

In relation to your question about highly technical or specialist claims, we are not aware of specific guidance requiring clinicians undertaking a Mental Health Act assessment to independently establish the technical validity of such claims or routinely obtain specialist technical expertise. Mental Health Act assessments are clinical and statutory assessments undertaken within the requirements of the legislation and Code of Practice.

The Health Board has established governance arrangements to provide assurance regarding the application of the Mental Health Act. These include:

scrutiny of detention documentation;
regular Mental Health Act audits;
reporting through the Mental Health Act Operational Group;
monitoring of consent-to-treatment compliance;
review of statutory timescales;
learning and feedback to clinical teams; and
escalation of recurring issues through established governance arrangements.

These arrangements provide oversight of compliance with the Mental Health Act and support learning and improvement within our services.

I hope this provides clarification regarding the matters that the Health Board is able to address locally and those which relate to national legislation and policy.

Yours sincerely,
Elaine Beaumont
Adult Directorate Manager

First an email back to MS

Subject: Mental Health Act / Code of Practice – further clarification sought following Health Board response

Dear Mr Davies,

Thank you for your earlier correspondence and for the response you received from the minister. I note the minister’s confidence that the current application of the Mental Health Act in Wales adequately protects an individual’s right to hold evidence-based beliefs, and the advice that clinicians are best placed to make decisions in the patient’s best interests. I also note the suggestion that any further action should take the form of a complaint to the Health Board.

I have not pursued a Health Board complaint. My concern is not primarily with seeking to overturn a local clinical decision, but with whether the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales provides sufficiently clear guidance to clinicians who are presented with highly technical material that falls outside their professional expertise. This appears to be a matter of national guidance. My own case provides a clear illustration of the difficulties that arise under the present arrangements.

I have since received a response from the Adult Directorate Manager at the Health Board (Elaine Beaumont), reproduced below. She confirms that the Code of Practice requires assessments to be undertaken in accordance with good clinical practice and that difference should not be confused with disorder, nor diagnoses made on the basis of stereotypes or assumptions. However, she also states that the Health Board is not aware of any specific guidance requiring clinicians undertaking a Mental Health Act assessment to independently establish the technical validity of highly specialist claims, or routinely to obtain specialist technical expertise. Assessments are described as clinical and statutory only.

In my case, the material presented concerned civil engineering matters based on historical elastic theory (Dr Viktor Lewe’s 1915 work and the provenance and use of coefficient tables in reinforced concrete design). These were characterised as fixed delusions contributing to a diagnosis that included psychosis. No independent technical assessment was sought, despite the material lying well outside the expertise of the assessing clinicians. The Code of Practice is clear that care must be taken not to diagnose on the basis of assumptions and that beliefs or behaviours which do not result from a disorder of the mind are not a basis for compulsory measures under the Act, even if they appear unusual. Where the content is highly technical, an assumption that it is delusional, made without any attempt to obtain relevant specialist input, demonstrates the practical inadequacy of current guidance.

Since the events in question I have continued the engineering work. Between April and August 2026 I engaged in extensive correspondence, telephone discussions and meetings with Professor Jiping Bai (Associate Professor and Lead of the Engineering Research and Innovation Group at the University of South Wales, Treforest) regarding a PhD by portfolio application. The correspondence (summarised publicly at https://ace-consultancy.uk/dr-ing-phd-proposal/) shows that the work was treated as a serious potential academic portfolio for a period of months, with feedback and scheduled meetings, before the process did not proceed. This does not claim formal validation of the work, but it demonstrates that a senior academic engineer considered the material capable of engagement at that level.

In light of the Health Board’s confirmation that no specific guidance exists on the handling of highly technical claims, and the Code of Practice’s own requirements regarding assumptions and the distinction between difference and disorder, I would be grateful if you could raise the following points again with the relevant minister:

1. Does the current Code of Practice provide adequate guidance to clinicians when they are presented with highly technical claims that fall outside their expertise, particularly in light of the requirement not to diagnose on the basis of assumptions?

2. Given the Health Board’s statement that no specific guidance requires independent technical validation or specialist input, are the existing safeguards considered sufficient to protect an individual’s right to hold evidence-based technical beliefs?

3. Would Welsh Government consider whether further guidance is needed in this area so that clinicians know when independent specialist technical input should be sought?

My case is offered as a practical illustration of why these questions matter. I remain happy to provide any further information, including the full Health Board response and the email trail with Professor Bai, if that would assist.

Thank you for considering this further. I appreciate that the earlier response indicated limited scope to challenge the minister’s overall interpretation, and I am returning only because the Health Board’s reply has clarified the absence of specific guidance on technical claims.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Reynolds.

Then thanks to Health Trust

Dear CTM, please can you forward my response to Ms Beaumont to close out the current email chain.

Thank you

Dear Ms Beaumont,

Thank you for your response today, 5th November, and for setting out the Health Board’s position on the application of the Mental Health Act and Code of Practice.

I note your confirmation that assessments should be undertaken in accordance with good clinical practice, that difference should not be confused with disorder, and that care should be taken not to diagnose on the basis of stereotypes or assumptions. I also note the statement that the Health Board is not aware of any specific guidance requiring clinicians to independently establish the technical validity of highly specialist claims or routinely to obtain specialist technical expertise.

For information, further to your response, I am raising this point further with my Senedd Member for transmission to Welsh Government. The concern is whether the Code of Practice currently provides sufficiently clear guidance to clinicians when they are presented with highly technical material that falls outside their expertise. In my own case the material concerned civil engineering matters based on historical elastic theory. These were characterised as fixed delusions without any independent technical assessment being sought.

Since those events I have engaged in correspondence and meetings with Professor Jiping Bai at the University of South Wales regarding the same body of work as a potential PhD by portfolio. The engagement is summarised publicly at https://ace-consultancy.uk/dr-ing-phd-proposal/. This is offered simply to illustrate that the material has been capable of serious academic engagement by a relevant engineering specialist.

I am not seeking a further reply from the Health Board. I am writing only to place on record that the matter is being pursued at national level in relation to the adequacy of guidance under the Code of Practice.

Thank you again for your time.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Reynolds

CTM.Concerns	Thu 5 Nov, 11:34 (1 day ago)	Ref 32325
to me

Trystan Davies, Dafydd (Aelod o’r Senedd – Member of the Senedd)	Wed 2 Sept, 16:22 (19 hours ago)
to me

martin reynolds <walnuttreejunction@gmail.com>	3 Sept 2026, 12:47
to CTM.Concerns, Dafydd, cwmtafmorgannwgenquiries

martin reynolds <walnuttreejunction@gmail.com>	13:15 (0 minutes ago)
to CTM.Concerns