Privy Council rules Trinidad and Tobago's gay sex ban unconstitutional

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

Sections 13 and 16 of Trinidad and Tobago's Sexual Offences Act 1986 made "buggery" and "serious indecency" between men crimes carrying up to five years in prison. On 10 November 2026, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council — the London-based court that serves as the country's final appeal — ruled both provisions unconstitutional.

The decision ends a challenge Jason Jones, a 62-year-old dual citizen, began more than a decade ago. It also rejects the argument that a law's colonial pedigree makes it legitimate: the Board held that surviving from the colonial era is not, by itself, a reason to keep a criminal ban.

Why it matters

Gay men in Trinidad and Tobago no longer face up to five years in prison for private, consensual sex.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

5 years

Maximum sentence under section 13

The prison term the law allowed for "buggery" before the ruling.

2 years

Maximum sentence under section 16

The prison term for "serious indecency" between men.

Jason Jones's age at the ruling

Born 5 September 1964 in Port of Spain.

11 years

Length of the legal challenge

From Jones's filing to the Privy Council judgment.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

People Involved

Jason Jones

Activist and appellant

Won at the Privy Council; remedy submissions pending

Devindra Rampersad

High Court judge

His remedial order was provisionally upheld

Organizations Involved

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Final court of appeal

Ruled the provisions unconstitutional

The London-based court of last resort for Trinidad and Tobago and several other Commonwealth countries.

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Government legal office

Lost its defence of sections 13 and 16

The respondent that defended the criminal provisions through the High Court, Court of Appeal and Privy Council.

Timeline

2015 November 2026

5 events Latest: Today

Tap a bar to jump to that date

November 2026
Privy Council allows the appeal
Today Ruling

The Board finds sections 13 and 16 not reasonably justifiable and dismisses the cross-appeal.
Today
July 2026
Privy Council hears the appeal
Legal

The Board hears argument in London on the constitutional questions.
July 8th, 2026
2019
Court of Appeal reverses on "existing law" ground
Legal

The majority holds the provisions were saved by section 6 of the Constitution.
2019
2018
High Court rules the provisions unconstitutional
Legal

Justice Rampersad reads sections 13 and 16 down so they do not cover consenting adults.
2018
2015
Jones files constitutional challenge
Legal

He argues sections 13 and 16 violate his right to private and family life.
2015

Scenarios

Privy Council keeps the reading-down remedy and leaves the sections in force

Likely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: The Board's own provisional view in the judgment

The Board said Justice Rampersad's order was "an elegant and appropriate resolution" and invited written submissions before finalising it. If it holds that line, sections 13 and 16 stay on the statute book but cannot be applied to private, consensual sex between adults.

Board strikes sections 13 and 16 from the statute book entirely

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Jones's counsel, who argued other criminal provisions already cover the conduct

At the hearing, Jones's lawyer asked the Board to delete the sections outright, arguing that any justified criminalisation is already handled elsewhere in the criminal law. The Board noted the request was not part of Jones's own appeal and gave both sides time to file written argument.

Parliament repeals sections 13 and 16

Unlikely Resolves by End of 2028

Discussed by: No commitment from the government reported as of the ruling

The Board said it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to tidy the statute book where offences overlap. A repeal bill would settle the question beyond future litigation, but the government has not announced one.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

October 1981

Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981)

The European Court of Human Rights heard a challenge to Northern Ireland's laws criminalising homosexual acts, which had been retained after England and Wales decriminalised in 1967. The court found the laws violated the right to respect for private life.

Then

Northern Ireland decriminalised homosexual acts in 1982.

Now

The ruling became the template for treating private, consensual sex as protected by privacy guarantees.

Why this matters now

It established the core reasoning the Privy Council used: criminal law reaching into private, consensual sex between adults fails a proportionality test.

March 1994

Toonen v Australia (1994)

Nicholas Toonen challenged Tasmania's sodomy laws before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing they breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee found the laws violated his privacy and equality rights.

Then

The Australian federal government moved to override Tasmania's laws.

Now

Tasmania repealed the offences in 1997, and the case became a reference point for Commonwealth challenges.

Why this matters now

It shows an external tribunal overruling a local criminal ban in a Commonwealth jurisdiction, the same structural move the Privy Council made here.

June 2003

Lawrence v Texas (2003)

The US Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law by a 6-3 vote, overruling its 1986 decision in Bowers v Hardwick. The majority grounded the ruling in liberty and privacy.

Then

Sodomy laws became unenforceable across the United States.

Now

The decision was later cited as a foundation for the 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage.

Why this matters now

It is the clearest parallel for a highest court invalidating a criminal ban on private sex between adults.