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…
| Trystan Davies, Dafydd (Aelod o’r Senedd – Member of the Senedd) | Wed 2 Sept, 16:22 (19 hours ago) | ||
to me | |||
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
ace-consultancy.uk 