For more than ten years, Trinidadian-British activist Jason Jones fought to dismantle a set of statutes introduced during British rule that criminalised consensual same-sex intimacy. The fight culminated on a Tuesday when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the final appellate body for several Commonwealth nations, issued a unanimous decision striking down those provisions. The ruling not only nullifies the offending sections of Trinidad and Tobago’s Sexual Offences Act but also reverberates across the Caribbean, where similar colonial-era bans persist.
Jones, who has lived in London for decades, described the moment as both a personal relief and a catalyst for broader change. He noted that legal victories do not automatically translate into societal acceptance, but they provide a crucial legal foothold for LGBTQ+ people to demand equal treatment. The judgment, delivered by Lord Sales, emphasized that the ability to form intimate, loving relationships is a fundamental human interest.
Legal battle from high court to Privy Council
The litigation began in 2016 when Jones challenged the criminalisation of consensual anal sex, arguing that it violated the constitutional guarantee of privacy. In 2018, High Court Judge Devindra Rampersad declared the relevant provisions unconstitutional, a decision later overturned by the Trinidadian Court of Appeal on the basis of the savings clause—a legal device that preserves older statutes inherited from the UK at independence. The government maintained that the 1986 amendment to the Sexual Offences Act was merely a continuation of the 1925 law, thus shielded by the savings clause.
Undeterred, Jones appealed to the Privy Council, contending that the 1986 amendment constituted fresh legislation and therefore could be scrutinised under the constitution. After a thorough hearing, all five Privy Council judges agreed, concluding that the 1986 act was not a simple continuation but a new piece of law, rendering it vulnerable to constitutional challenge.
Details of the Privy Council judgment
Lord Sales delivered the opinion, stating that the law could not be justified in a society that respects individual rights. He highlighted that the criminalisation of consensual intimacy infringes on the fundamental right to respect for private and family life. The court also upheld Judge Rampersad’s remedy, which legalises consensual anal sex between adults over 16, regardless of gender, and removes the archaic offence of “gross indecency.”Colonial-era buggery laws that had lingered for a century were therefore rendered null and void.
What the savings clause means
The savings clause is a constitutional provision found in many former British colonies. It preserves pre-independence statutes from being invalidated by later constitutional guarantees. In this case, the Privy Council determined that the 1986 amendment broke the continuity required for the clause to apply, allowing the court to strike down the provisions as unconstitutional.
Regional repercussions and reactions
Human-rights advocates anticipate a domino effect. Activist Peter Tatchell warned that at least a dozen Caribbean jurisdictions that still rely on the Privy Council could invoke the decision to challenge their own anti-gay statutes. Lawyers from St Vincent, Guyana and other islands have already cited the ruling as persuasive authority for pending cases.
Local organisations such as Pride TT and the Human Dignity Trust welcomed the judgment but cautioned that legal change does not instantly erase discrimination, stigma and unequal treatment in employment, housing, healthcare and public services. Nevertheless, the decision marks a watershed moment for LGBTQ+ rights in the region, reinforcing a growing trend that began with Belize’s 2016 ruling and continued through Antigua, Barbados, St Kitts, Dominica and St Lucia.
