Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
LGBTQI+ activist Jason Jones will have to wait longer for a final ruling in his more than decade-long constitutional challenge to this country’s buggery and serious indecency laws.
United Kingdom Supreme Court President Lord Robert Reed and four other Law Lords of the Privy Council reserved judgment in the final appeal of Jones’ landmark case after hearing submissions in London yesterday.
“The case deals with complex issues of law which would take us some time to go through. We will let you know our decision in due course,” Lord Reed said.
In a statement issued before the hearing, Jones said he was confident the country’s highest appellate court would uphold his claim.
“The Privy Council will never uphold a 500-year-old homophobic piece of British law that goes against the rights of the individual! Not in 2026! I’m going to win,” Jones said.
Drawing a comparison with colonial laws that once prohibited members of the Spiritual Baptist faith from worshipping, Jones said: “Gay people don’t want or need a holiday. We just want what every Trinbagonian has. The right to live our lives without persecution. The right to love whomever we choose.”
Jones said pursuing the case had come at immense personal cost.
“This case has taken everything from me. I’ve lost family, friends, and love,” he said, claiming he had to sell family heirlooms to pay his initial legal fees.
Jones is appealing a majority decision of the Court of Appeal, which overturned a 2018 ruling by High Court Judge Devindra Rampersad in his favour.
In its judgment delivered last year, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and Charmaine Pemberton agreed that Sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1986 infringe fundamental constitutional rights and discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
However, they held that the provisions are protected by the savings clause in Section 6(2) of the Constitution, which shields from constitutional challenge laws that remained in force when Trinidad and Tobago became a republic in 1976.
The clause also applies to colonial-era laws that were repealed after 1976 but later re-enacted with modifications.
Based on that finding, the judges struck down the 25-year sentence for buggery under Section 13, ruling that the original penalty of five years’ imprisonment should instead apply.
They also ruled that the exemptions from prosecution for serious indecency under Section 16, which excluded homosexuals, should be disapplied because they were not contained in the saved colonial legislation.
Justice of Appeal Vasheist Kokaram dissented, affirming Justice Rampersad’s original decision that the legislation was not protected by the savings clause and was therefore open to constitutional review.
Appearing for Jones yesterday, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan urged the Privy Council to adopt the reasoning of Justices Kokaram and Rampersad.
He rejected the majority’s conclusion that the savings clause applied because the 1986 Act retained key features of the colonial legislation.
“It was an act to repeal and replace. It was a complete overhaul,” Ramlogan said.
He also questioned the implications of applying the savings clause to other post-independence constitutional rights.
“History has taught us repeatedly that, far too often, reflected in the prejudices of human beings, things have occurred that demonstrate man’s own inhumanity to man,” Ramlogan said.
“Slavery was once lawful, interracial marriages were once condemned as being unnatural and immoral, women were once denied equal rights because society believed that that was to be the natural order of things. They were only good for child-bearing, child-rearing and being good homemakers, full stop,” he added.
Ramlogan urged the Law Lords to follow their conscience.
“Who are we to volunteer that gay people should starve because we don’t like the meat that they eat?” he said.
Arguing that constitutional rights are designed to protect minority groups, Ramlogan added: “They ensure that the dignity and equality of every citizen are not left to the changing tide of public opinion.”
Leading the State’s legal team, King’s Counsel Peter Knox urged the board to uphold the Court of Appeal’s majority decision.
While describing Justice Rampersad’s judgment as elegant, Knox argued that it was incorrect.
He noted that constitutional rights are not absolute and may be qualified by legislation.
“There is freedom of speech subject to the law on slander and defamation,” he said.
Knox also maintained that the Court of Appeal majority was correct in finding that the 1986 Act re-enacted the colonial laws with modifications and therefore remained protected by the savings clause.
“As long as you can trace the old provision to a new provision, then that is a re-enactment with modification,” Knox said.
Jones was also represented by Ganesh Saroop of Freedom Law Chambers.
