TRINIDAD and Tobago's buggery and serious indecency laws are again in focus, as the Court of Appeal has been asked to overturn a ruling of the High Court which deemed portions of local sexual-offences law unconstitutional because they criminalised sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex.
On Wednesday, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Charmaine Pemberton and Vasheist Kokaram heard submissions from a team of attorneys for the State, the Evangelical Council of Churches and Trinidadian LGBTQIA+ activist Jason Jones, who filed the original constitutional claim in 2017.
The State has appealed the April 12, 2018, ruling of Justice Devindra Rampersad.
The Council of Churches entered as an interested party.
Rampersad had modified sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalised buggery and serious indecency even between consenting adults, and declared them unconstitutional.
Jones has asked him to determine whether the State had the constitutional authority to criminalise same-sex intimacy.
The judge's modification of the sections introduced the element of consent, as section 13 outlawed anal intercourse between two men and a man and woman. At the time, he said it was a 'non-intrusive' option.
The judges have reserved their ruling, acknowledging they have a monumental task ahead of them.
Speaking after the all-day hearing at the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain, Jones told the media there were no surprises, as the State's arguments were a rehash of its original position in the High Court.
However, he said what was revealing was that the local courts have repeatedly asked why the State is retaining these laws and there is no answer… "Regardless of the savings-law clauses and the Constitution, we are talking about the rights of some 100,000 LGBTQIA+ citizens in TT.
'...Why are we spending all this money and retaining these laws?'
Jones also cited local immigration laws which, he said, prevented LGBTQIA+ people from entering the country as guests.
'The modernisation of our democracy is at stake here and this is the beginning of this modernisation.'
In his submissions on the appeal, Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, who led the State's legal team, referred the judges to the savings-law provision of the Constitution, which protects pre-independence legislation from review, the Constitution and the various legal authorities they should look at.
Hosein said the case was entirely for the courts.
"This is not a case about morality or the spiritual positions taken by religious bodies.
'This is a matter that turns on the interpretation of the Constitution…The court is the guardian of the Constitution.'
In 2018, when the appeal was filed, then attorney general Faris Al-Rawi made it clear the State was not taking an adversarial approach but wanted a comprehensive judicial determination on the controversial issue.
In his submissions, Hosein provided an analysis of the sexual offences legislation, including
He acknowledged the Sexual Offences Act of 1986 increased the p
