# Is the H5 - Section 20—renewal of authority for detention - form valid?

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/is-the-h5-section-20-renewal-of-authority-for-detention-form-valid/5736>\
**Category:** Mental Health Act\
**Tags:** mha-forms\
**Created:** [15 June 2026 17:38 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/is-the-h5-section-20-renewal-of-authority-for-detention-form-valid/5736 "2026-06-15T17:38:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anonymous34](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@anonymous34](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/anonymous34)\
**Post date:** [15 June 2026 17:38 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/is-the-h5-section-20-renewal-of-authority-for-detention-form-valid/5736/1 "2026-06-15T17:38:56Z")

</div>

Hi

Patient under s3 has had their detention renewed by the RC completing the above and the new period of detention has come into legal effect.

During administrative scrutiny it has come to our attention that the box in part 1 of the [form](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Form_H5:_Section_20_-_renewal_of_authority_for_detention) which states:

> Such treatment cannot be provided unless the patient continues to be detained under the Act, for the following reasons —
> 
> (Reasons should indicate why informal admission is not appropriate.)
> 
> (If you need to continue on a separate sheet please indicate here ( ) and attach that sheet to this form.)

Has been inadvertently deleted/omitted (unsure at this stage how and by whom) as the form sent to the RC to complete was all in order at the time.

The RMN in part 2 does certify:

> “…it is necessary for the patient’s own health or safety or for the protection of other persons that the patient should receive treatment and it cannot be provided unless the patient continues to be detained under the Act…”

In addition, the RC’s narrative does record/detail how and why:  
The patient lacks insight  
Is requesting discharge  
Lacks capacity regarding his treatment plan  
He presents significant risks to others through aggression and violence  
He requires ongoing treatment in hospital.

I mean this does allude/support why informal admission would not be appropriate.

Would it be appropriate to ask the RC to provide a written statement/file note confirming his rationale that was required to be entered into the missing box with reasons and an explanation how the omission/error occurred etc.?

Thanking you in advance.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/captainwalker/32/159_2.png) [@CaptainWalker](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/CaptainWalker)\
**Post date:** [15 June 2026 22:35 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/is-the-h5-section-20-renewal-of-authority-for-detention-form-valid/5736/2 "2026-06-15T22:35:33Z")

</div>

> [@anonymous34](#):
>
> Would it be appropriate to ask the RC to provide a written statement/file note confirming his rationale that was required to be entered into the missing box with reasons and an explanation how the omission/error occurred etc.?

No - is the short answer.

The longer answer is ‘yes’ - if the scrutiniser only sees allusion/support on reasons.

I assert that all legally relevant reasons for detention must be explicit and 100% clear; leaving no room for ‘figuring out’ what’s what.

But as a qualified Human Rights Defender, I would say so and crowds would say I am wrong.

I am not loved by Trusts when I do scrutiny.