The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has unanimously ruled that Trinidad and Tobago’s laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity between adults violate fundamental constitutional rights, delivering a landmark victory for LGBTQ rights activist Jason Jones.

The five-member panel, sitting as the country’s highest appellate court, ruled Tuesday that Sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act of 1986, which criminalize buggery and serious indecency, cannot be shielded from constitutional challenges simply because similar laws existed during British colonial rule.

The decision overturns a significant portion of a Court of Appeal ruling that had preserved parts of the legislation and restores the central findings of an earlier High Court judgment in Jones’ favor.

Jones, a gay Trinidad and Tobago national, challenged the legislation after experiencing harassment, discrimination and violence because of his sexual orientation. He also reported living with anxiety and fear of arrest, prosecution and punishment under the laws.

The Privy Council found that criminalizing private, consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex interferes with fundamental aspects of personal identity, dignity and the constitutional right to respect for private and family life.

In its judgment, the court emphasized that the ability to establish intimate and loving relationships lies at the heart of constitutional protections for private and family life.

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago had argued that the disputed provisions were protected under constitutional arrangements preserving laws that existed before the country’s 1976 Constitution.

The government also maintained that the legislation reflected longstanding traditions and should be assessed against the social circumstances prevailing when the Sexual Offences Act was enacted in 1986.

However, the Privy Council rejected both arguments.

The judges determined that the 1986 legislation represented a comprehensive overhaul of sexual offenses law rather than a simple continuation of colonial-era provisions. Consequently, the disputed sections were not protected from constitutional scrutiny under provisions safeguarding existing laws.

The court also rejected the argument that the constitutionality of the restrictions should be judged solely against the circumstances of 1986.

Instead, it held that the relevant assessment must consider the circumstances when an individual’s constitutional rights are being challenged.

The judges found that the government had failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the restrictions served a legitimate purpose consistent with contemporary societal values.

They further concluded that the interference with Jones’ private life was too severe to be considered reasonably justifiable in a society that respects individual rights and freedoms.

The unanimous decision was delivered by Lord Sales and Lord Burrows, with Lord Reed, Lord Briggs and Lady Rose agreeing.

The ruling allows Jones’ appeal and dismisses the Attorney General’s cross-appeal.

Although the constitutional questions have been decided, the Privy Council has not yet issued its final order specifying how the disputed legislative provisions should be modified.

The court will receive further written submissions from the parties before determining the precise changes required to bring the legislation into compliance with constitutional protections.

Its provisional position is that the original High Court order should be upheld.

The case, The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and others v. Jason Jones, was also contested by the Equal Opportunity Commission of Trinidad and Tobago and the Trinidad and Tobago Council of Evangelical Churches.

Several regional and international organizations intervened, including Colours Caribbean, the Silver Lining Foundation, OutBermuda, the United Belize Advocacy Movement and ILGA-NAC.

The decision adds to a growing body of Caribbean judicial rulings addressing colonial-era legislation criminalizing consensual same-sex relations.

For countries across the region that retain similar legislation, the judgment provides an important interpretation of constitutional protections, particularly the extent to which longstanding laws can be insulated from challenges involving fundamental human rights.

The ruling is reported as 2026 UKPC 38.

This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: UK Privy Council strikes down Trinidad and Tobago’s buggery laws in landmark ruling.