JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, February 28, 2025

Rampersad makes historic same-sex ruling

by

Derek Achong Derek Achong Derek Achong
2352 days ago
20180921
Jubilant LGBT activists celebrate outside the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain in April.

Jubilant LGBT activists celebrate outside the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain in April.

ABRAHAM DIAZ

It’s of­fi­cial, sex­u­al ac­tiv­i­ty be­tween con­sent­ing male adults is no longer il­le­gal.

De­liv­er­ing a 14-page de­ci­sion at the Hall of Jus­tice in Port-of-Spain yes­ter­day, High Court Judge Devin­dra Ram­per­sad mod­i­fied sec­tions 13 and 16 of the Sex­u­al Of­fences Act, which had pre­vi­ous­ly crim­i­nalised bug­gery and se­ri­ous in­de­cen­cy even be­tween con­sent­ing adults.

Al­though Ram­per­sad de­clared that the sec­tions were un­con­sti­tu­tion­al in a land­mark rul­ing de­liv­ered in April, he had re­served his de­ci­sion on how the leg­is­la­tion could be amend­ed to give ef­fect to it.

As Sec­tion 13 out­lawed anal in­ter­course be­tween two men and a man and a woman, Ram­per­sad sought to in­tro­duce the el­e­ment of con­sent.

De­scrib­ing the move as the “non-in­tru­sive” op­tion, Ram­per­sad said: “To ac­cede to the de­fen­dant’s propo­si­tion that the pro­vi­sions be struck down would be to go be­yond what this court be­lieves is suf­fi­cient to meet the jus­tice of the case and to do more than is nec­es­sary.”

Ram­per­sad al­so point­ed out that “strik­ing out” was un­nec­es­sary, as no one has been re­cent­ly pros­e­cut­ed for the of­fence. It would have al­so meant that non-con­sen­su­al anal in­ter­course (anal rape) would be le­gal.

Ram­per­sad al­so re­ject­ed that State’s con­tention that in­clud­ing con­sent would le­git­imise an of­fence, which Par­lia­ment con­demned whether it was con­sen­su­al or non­con­sen­su­al.

“Par­lia­ment, hav­ing failed to meet the re­quire­ments of Sec­tion 13 of the Con­sti­tu­tion, the court is sat­is­fied that it can­not be ac­cused of le­git­imis­ing the act but rather strik­ing out that which Par­lia­ment could not law­ful­ly do, hav­ing failed in es­tab­lish­ing the le­git­i­ma­cy of the ex­clu­sion,” Ram­per­sad said.

In deal­ing with Sec­tion 16, Ram­per­sad sim­ply mod­i­fied the de­fences avail­able to per­sons ac­cused of se­ri­ous in­de­cen­cy.

The leg­is­la­tion de­fines the of­fence as “an act, oth­er than sex­u­al in­ter­course (whether nat­ur­al or un­nat­ur­al), by a per­son in­volv­ing the use of the gen­i­tal or­gan for the pur­pose of arous­ing or grat­i­fy­ing sex­u­al de­sire.” It pro­vid­ed that a hus­band and wife and a con­sent­ing cou­ple (a male and a fe­male) are ex­empt.

Ram­per­sad chose to mod­i­fy the lat­ter ex­emp­tion to make the con­sent­ing cou­ple gen­der neu­tral.

He said: “The re­sult is there­fore that there is no dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion or un­equal treat­ment af­ford­ed to con­sent­ing male per­sons such as the claimant in re­la­tion to what could pre­vi­ous­ly be re­gard­ed as se­ri­ous in­de­cen­cy be­tween males.

“Ob­vi­ous­ly, a corol­lary to this is that con­sent­ing fe­males al­so qual­i­fy for these ex­emp­tions.”

Dur­ing yes­ter­day’s hear­ing, Se­nior Coun­sel Fyard Ho­sein, who is lead­ing the State’s le­gal team, re­quest­ed a 45-day stay of the de­ci­sion to give the State time to pre­pare its ap­peal.

“We would like the high­est court in the land (the Privy Coun­cil) to rule on it,” Ho­sein said, as he re­it­er­at­ed the Gov­ern­ment’s po­si­tion stat­ed by At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Faris Al-Rawi af­ter Ram­per­sad’s ini­tial judg­ment.

The sug­ges­tion was strong­ly op­posed by at­tor­ney Rishi Dass, who is rep­re­sent­ing T&T-born gay rights ac­tivist Ja­son Jones, who brought the nov­el law­suit.

Dass ques­tioned the need for a stay as he not­ed that the State’s po­si­tion was the leg­is­la­tion was not be­ing en­forced. Ram­per­sad agreed.

Jones is al­so be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Richard Drab­ble, QC, and An­to­nio Em­manuel.

Jones was not present in court for the de­ci­sion but spoke briefly to CNC3 via video con­fer­ence from the Unit­ed King­dom af­ter­wards.

“I am so ab­solute­ly thrilled. I have been re­ceiv­ing mes­sages of con­grat­u­la­tions from around the world,” Jones said.

Jones not­ed that his case was cit­ed by In­dia’s Supreme Court in its land­mark rul­ing strik­ing down that coun­try’s ho­mo­pho­bic laws ear­li­er this month.

“We are the lit­tle is­land that is roar­ing and mak­ing big noise around the world. To­day, the world is again watch­ing us and I am so in­cred­i­bly proud,” Jones said.

While he thanked the lo­cal LGBTQI com­mu­ni­ty for sup­port­ing him, he lament­ed about in­creas­ing ho­mo­pho­bia aris­ing out of his le­gal vic­to­ry.

“As you know, I re­ceived many death threats and many aw­ful things have been said about me by a lot of re­li­gious lead­ers, but the LGBT com­mu­ni­ty has re­al­ly stood by me,” Jones said, as he claimed his le­gal team is al­ready prepar­ing for the first ap­peal in the Court of Ap­peal.

About the case

Last year, Ja­son Jones filed the law­suit in which he chal­lenged the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of sec­tions 13 and 16 of the Sex­u­al Of­fences Act.

Jones, who is a res­i­dent of the Unit­ed King­dom, claimed that the long-stand­ing leg­is­la­tion con­tra­vened his con­sti­tu­tion­al rights to pri­va­cy and free­dom of thought and ex­pres­sion and was in di­rect con­tra­dic­tion to this coun­try’s in­ter­na­tion­al hu­man rights oblig­a­tions.

In his 58-page judg­ment de­liv­ered on April 12, Ram­per­sad agreed that the leg­is­la­tion con­tra­vened Jones’ rights to pri­va­cy and fam­i­ly life.

Al­though he ac­knowl­edged claims from State at­tor­neys that the leg­is­la­tion has nev­er been en­forced against con­sent­ing adults, Ram­per­sad said that did not mit­i­gate the im­pact on Jones and oth­er ho­mo­sex­u­als who lived in fear of be­ing brand­ed crim­i­nals based on their ex­pres­sion of love and af­fec­tion.

The judge sug­gest­ed that by al­low­ing it to re­main as valid law, Par­lia­ment had helped to cul­ti­vate so­ci­ety’s ho­mo­pho­bic views on the is­sue.

At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Faris Al-Rawi has al­ready stat­ed that Gov­ern­ment in­tends to ap­peal the judg­ment to the coun­try’s high­est ap­pel­late court, the Privy Coun­cil, to re­ceive a com­pre­hen­sive ju­di­cial de­ter­mi­na­tion on the con­tro­ver­sial is­sue.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored