Privy Council Strikes Down Trinidad and Tobago's Laws Against Same-Sex Intimacy

The highest court of appeal for Trinidad and Tobago has ruled that the country's laws cannot be used to criminalise private, consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London delivered its judgment in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Jason Jones on November 10, allowing Jones's appeal and dismissing the Attorney General's cross appeal.

Human Rights Watch said it was the first time the Privy Council had ruled on the constitutionality of such laws. Because the court also serves as the final court for other Commonwealth countries, the reasoning is likely to be studied well beyond Trinidad and Tobago.

The Case

Jason Jones, a Trinidadian activist who lives in England, filed his claim in the High Court in February 2017. He argued that sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986, which criminalise "buggery" and "serious indecency," infringed his constitutional right to respect for his private and family life.

In April 2018, Justice Devindra Rampersad agreed and ruled the provisions unconstitutional to the extent that they criminalised consensual conduct between adults. In March 2025, a majority of the Court of Appeal reversed him, finding that the provisions were protected by the constitution's savings clause for existing law. The Guardian described that decision as having recriminalised the conduct.

The Savings Clause Question

The central issue was whether the 1986 Act was simply a re-enactment of colonial era laws from 1925, which would be shielded from challenge, or new law that could be tested against the constitution.

The five justices, Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Briggs, Lord Burrows and Lady Rose, held that it was new law. The judgment pointed out that the 1986 Act was presented as a fresh package to modernise sexual offences after a Law Commission report, and that its long title said it was intended to "repeal and replace" the earlier laws. It also stressed that savings clauses should be read narrowly, because a wide reading would undermine the protection of fundamental rights.

Not Reasonably Justifiable

The government also argued that the 1986 Act was saved because it had been passed by a special supermajority. The Board rejected that argument, holding that whether such a law is reasonably justifiable must be judged at the time the court considers it, not as of 1986.

The Attorney General filed no evidence to justify the provisions, and the Board found that keeping laws in place simply because they are traditional was not a legitimate aim. "The ability to form a deep connection with another person through an intimate and loving relationship is a vital interest for all human beings," the judgment said. It drew on the 1981 European Court of Human Rights decision in Dudgeon v United Kingdom and on recent rulings in Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, Dominica and St Lucia.

What Comes Next

The Board said the provisions must be interpreted so that they do not apply to private, consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex. Its provisional view is that Justice Rampersad's 2018 remedy, which limits the offences to non consensual conduct, should be upheld, but it will first receive written submissions from both sides on the final order.

Jones told The Guardian he expected the ruling to have "a domino effect" in countries that use the Privy Council as their final court. Pride TT, an advocacy group in Trinidad and Tobago, welcomed the decision but said discrimination and stigma remain realities in daily life, according to The Guardian.

Why It Matters

For lawyers across the Caribbean, the judgment offers a clear method for testing laws that were updated after independence but still carry colonial era rules. For governments, it is a reminder that a law's age is not a defence on its own when fundamental rights are at stake.

Court Magazine will follow the final order once the further submissions are filed and decided.