Trinidad and Tobago’s same-sex criminal laws fail constitutional review
The Privy Council unanimously upheld Jason Jones’s challenge to Trinidad and Tobago’s criminalisation of private, consensual same-sex relations between adults. The judges found that the 1986 legislation could not claim constitutional immunity reserved for older laws. Their decision centres on privacy rights, with further written submissions to precede a final order specifying changes to the provisions.
Geopolitics··Morning
Jones wins his constitutional appeal
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the court based in London hearing Jason Jones’s appeal from Trinidad and Tobago, ruled unanimously in his favour on November 10. The case concerns criminal penalties for private, consensual same-sex activity between adults under sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986.[1], [2]
Jones had won in the High Court before the Court of Appeal partly reversed that result. The appeal court relied on constitutional protection for legislation predating the Constitution. Jones challenged that reasoning, while the attorney general brought a cross-appeal defending the provisions through a further constitutional argument. The board allowed Jones’s appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.[1]
The 1986 law cannot inherit colonial immunity
Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution came into force in 1976. The board held that the 1986 Act created a new and comprehensive sexual-offences regime, rather than simply reenacting old rules. It therefore fell outside the protection for existing laws. The judges said exceptions insulating older legislation from fundamental-rights challenges must be read narrowly.[1]
Parliament had passed the law with the required supermajority. That procedure did not settle whether its interference with constitutional rights was reasonably justifiable. The attorney general invoked longstanding tradition. The judges found that no evidence had been offered to establish the strength of that tradition or its compatibility with prevailing societal values.[1]
The challenged legislation draws a distinction between couples: section 16 exempts private, consensual acts between an adult man and woman, while withholding that exception from adults of the same sex. Jones’s case concerned that unequal treatment within the criminal provisions.[1]
Privacy finding precedes the final remedial order
The board found that criminalising such relationships seriously interfered with a central part of Jones’s life and identity, protected by respect for private and family life. Lord Sales and Lord Burrows delivered the judgment with the other members agreeing. The judges are to receive further written submissions before determining the precise modifications to sections 13 and 16 in their final order.[1]
