Trinidad And Tobago Gay Rights Campaigner Wins Landmark Appeal Against Anti-Gay Laws

Jason Jones, a 61-year-old gay man from Trinidad and Tobago, has won a nearly decade-long legal battle after the UK's Privy Council unanimously ruled against laws criminalising consensual same-sex relationships between adults. The court found that two provisions of the country's Sexual Offences Act 1986 violated constitutional rights to private and family life. The ruling overturns a previous appeal court decision and represents a significant development for LGBTQ+ rights in the Caribbean, where similar colonial-era laws remain in force in several countries. Jones described the judgment as a major personal victory after years of discrimination and legal struggle

A 61-year-old gay man from Trinidad and Tobago, Jason Jones, has won a landmark legal battle against laws criminalising consensual same-sex relationships between adults, after the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London unanimously ruled in his favour.
The decision, delivered on November 10, 2026, brings an almost decade-long legal struggle to a major turning point. Five judges allowed Jones's appeal and dismissed a counter-appeal by the country's Attorney General, ruling that two provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1986 violated his fundamental constitutional rights.
The court held that the provisions could not be used to criminalise private, consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex. The judgment is particularly significant because the Privy Council serves as the final court of appeal for Trinidad and Tobago, a former British colony that retained this judicial arrangement after gaining independence.
Jones challenged the laws because he believed they violated his right to private and family life under the country's 1976 Constitution. His victory has also renewed attention to similar laws that remain in force in parts of the Caribbean.

PRIVY COUNCIL REJECTS GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT

The case centred on Sections 13 and 16 of Trinidad and Tobago's Sexual Offences Act 1986.
Section 13 criminalised an offence described in the legislation as "buggery", while Section 16 dealt with "serious indecency". Together, the provisions were used to criminalise certain consensual sexual activities between adults of the same sex.
The offences carried prison sentences, including a possible maximum of five years under the relevant provisions.
Jones argued that the laws interfered with his constitutional rights, particularly his right to respect for private and family life. He maintained that consenting adults should not face criminal punishment simply because of the sex of the person with whom they choose to have an intimate relationship.
The government opposed his challenge, arguing that the laws had a special constitutional status because they were connected to criminal provisions dating back to the colonial period. It also relied on the fact that the 1986 legislation had been passed through a special parliamentary procedure requiring a supermajority.
However, the Privy Council rejected that argument. The judges concluded that the 1986 provisions represented new legislation rather than merely reproducing older laws in a way that would automatically protect them from constitutional challenges.
The court also found that the government had failed to establish that the restrictions were reasonably justifiable in a society that properly respects individual rights and freedoms.

JUDGES SAY SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS PART OF PERSONAL IDENTITY

In explaining the decision, the judges emphasised that the right to private and family life protects important aspects of an individual's identity, including the ability to form intimate and loving relationships.
Lord Philip Sales, one of the judges involved in the ruling, said the modern understanding of fundamental rights recognises sexual orientation as a core part of human identity.
He explained that laws seeking to criminalise consensual same-sex activity between adults could not be justified under the constitutional protections being considered.
The judgment was unanimous, with all five members of the judicial panel supporting the outcome.
The decision does not mean that every form of sexual conduct is exempt from criminal law. It specifically protects private, consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex from criminalisation under the challenged provisions.

JASON JONES'S DECADE-LONG FIGHT FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION

Jones, who was born in Trinidad and Tobago in 1964, has described himself as openly gay since the age of 16.
He said he left the country in 1996 after experiencing homophobic violence and discrimination. His personal experiences later motivated him to challenge the laws and seek legal recognition of the rights of gay people.
Jones said his determination was strengthened by losing friends to HIV/AIDS and by experiences that shaped his understanding of discrimination and personal freedom.
He also recalled meeting American singer and songwriter Nina Simone during her visit to Trinidad and Tobago in 1984. According to Jones, Simone encouraged him to leave the island and explore the wider world, an experience he described as life-changing.
Speaking after the ruling, Jones expressed relief and a sense of vindication. He said he had spent years fighting a legal system that had made him feel as though society treated him worse than a criminal.
He also argued that the judgment showed why constitutional courts must protect individual rights even when those rights are unpopular among sections of society.

HOW THE CASE MOVED THROUGH THE COURTS

Jones launched his legal challenge in 2017, beginning a series of proceedings that eventually reached the Privy Council.
In 2018, Trinidad and Tobago's High Court ruled that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional to the extent that they criminalised consensual sexual activity between adults. The decision was a major development for LGBTQ+ rights campaigners in the country.
However, the government and religious organisations challenged the ruling.
In March 2025, the Court of Appeal partly reversed the High Court's decision. Although it accepted that the laws could not be justified in certain respects, it found that they had a degree of protection under the Constitution because of their connection to earlier colonial-era legislation.
Jones subsequently took the case to the Privy Council, seeking a final determination.
The Attorney General also filed a counter-appeal, arguing that the challenged provisions should retain greater constitutional protection.
The Privy Council's November 2026 decision resolved the central dispute in Jones's favour by confirming that the provisions could not be used to criminalise private, consensual same-sex relationships between adults.
One of Jones's lawyers, Anand Ramlogan, a former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, said constitutional rights were necessary because majority opinion could not always determine what was fair or just for every individual.

RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS AND GOVERNMENT OPPOSED THE CHALLENGE

The legal dispute attracted strong opposition from sections of the country's religious and political establishment.
The Attorney General, the Trinidad and Tobago Council of Evangelical Churches and the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, one of the country's largest Hindu organisations, were among those involved in contesting the challenge.
Their participation reflected the wider disagreement in Trinidad and Tobago over the relationship between traditional religious beliefs, public morality and constitutional protections for individual rights.
The case also attracted the attention of LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations across the Caribbean. Several groups intervened in the proceedings to support the protection of fundamental rights.
The ruling has therefore become significant beyond Jones's personal circumstances, particularly for campaigners challenging laws inherited from the colonial period.

COLONIAL-ERA ANTI-GAY LAWS REMAIN A REGIONAL ISSUE

Trinidad and Tobago is among several Caribbean countries where laws criminalising consensual same-sex relationships have remained in place long after independence from Britain.
Some countries and territories have already removed similar restrictions through legislation or court decisions.
The Bahamas decriminalised homosexuality in 1991, while the United Kingdom extended changes to several of its Caribbean overseas territories in 2001.
Courts in countries including Barbados, Dominica, Saint Lucia, and Antigua and Barbuda have also struck down laws criminalising consensual same-sex intimacy.
However, similar restrictions remain in countries such as Jamaica, Grenada, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The history of these laws is closely connected to British colonial rule. Britain itself did not decriminalise consensual sexual relations between men in England and Wales until 1967, and the legacy of earlier criminal laws continued to affect people long after that reform.
For LGBTQ+ campaigners, the Privy Council's ruling is another important development in the wider effort to challenge legislation that criminalises private relationships between consenting adults.

WHAT THE RULING MEANS FOR TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

The judgment establishes that the challenged provisions of the Sexual Offences Act cannot be used to criminalise private, consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex.
It also reinforces the principle that constitutional rights must be considered when governments create or maintain criminal laws affecting private relationships and personal identity.
Although the provisions had reportedly not been actively enforced in recent years, their continued existence had remained a source of fear and uncertainty for gay men. Critics argued that the laws encouraged stigma and discrimination even when prosecutions were uncommon.
Jones's victory does not automatically resolve every challenge facing LGBTQ+ people in Trinidad and Tobago. Discrimination, social hostility and questions about equal treatment remain broader issues that require attention beyond the courtroom.
Nevertheless, the Privy Council's unanimous decision represents a major legal development. It places constitutional protections above the government's attempt to preserve the challenged restrictions and gives renewed encouragement to campaigners seeking similar legal changes elsewhere in the Caribbean.