Trinidad and Tobago LGBT Laws

GLBTI persons may not lawfully enter Trinidad and Tobago [R1.1]

Immigration Act. Chapter 18.01. Part I [L1.1]

Section 8. Prohibited Classes

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), entry into Trinidad and Tobago of the persons described in this subsection, other than citizens and, subject to section 7(2), residents, is prohibited, namely –

[…]

(e) prostitutes, homosexuals or persons living on the earnings of prostitutes or homosexuals, or persons reasonably suspected as coming to Trinidad and Tobago for these or any other immoral purposes;

n 12 May 2016, it was reported that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) had dismissed an application in its original jurisdiction by Jamaican Maurice Tomlinson against the immigration laws of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago. Tomlinson alleged that the existence of laws purporting to deny homosexuals and prostitutes entry discriminated against him under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas; however the court found that he had no valid reason to assume his rights would not be respected under either state’s law, since he had provided no evidence of same [C2.4], [R2.3].

On 08 May 2014, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) granted Jamaican Maurice Tomlinson special leave to commence proceedings within 7 days against Trinidad and Tobago and Belize after he claimed that their existing legislations impinged upon his right to free movement, the immigration acts of Trinidad and Tobago and Belize preventing homosexuals from entering [C2.2], [R2.1].

In February 2011, Senators debated about recognition of same-sex unions when some objected to the fact that same-sex couples were excluded from proposed amendments to a law that pays a month’s salary to the next of kin of a civil servant who passes away [R1.1].

On 14 August 2012, in a private letter to gay rights campaigner Lance Price, which was obtained by the T&T Guardian, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar promised to end discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the proposed national gender policy [R1.1].

On 28 June 2018, Justice Frank Seepersad in the San Fernando High Court reportedly approved a consent order between two gay former business partners and lovers, saying ”Equality of treatment before the law ought to be a cornerstone of any democratic society, but for many citizens the law deprives them of basic protection as they are denied the requisite degree of statutory protection which is afforded to heterosexual partners” particularly in propriety and inheritance matters [R1.1].

On 05 March 2001, the government agree to a court order to pay a transsexual woman $4,762 in damages for an unlawful arrest and illegal conduct by police officers who were eager to search her [R1.1].

Consensual sex between same-sex couples is lawful [R2.4], [R2.3].

Sexual Offences Act. Chapter 11:28 [L1.4]

Part I. Offences and the Prosecution and Punishment of Offences (as amended by the Court [R2.4])

Section 13. Buggery

(1) A person who commits the offence of buggery is liable on conviction to imprisonment for twenty-five years.

(2) In this section ”buggery” means sexual intercourse ”without consent” per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.

Section 16. Serious Indecency

(1) A person who commits an act of serious indecency on or towards another is liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of serious indecency committed in private between­

(a) a husband and his wife;

(b) ”persons” each of whom is sixteen years of age or more, both of whom consent to the commission of the act; or

(c) persons to whom section 20(1) and (2) and (3) of the Children Act apply.

(3) An act of ”serious indecency” is 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.

See Courts & Tribunals below:

On 20 September 2018, Justice Devindra Rampersad gave his final ruling that sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalised sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex, was unconstitutional. He did not immediately strike down the sections, but invited further submissions on the issue whilst ruling that consenting adults of the same sex can no longer be prosecuted for engaging in sexual acts [R2.4].

On 13 April 2018, it was reported that High Court Justice Devindra Rampersad declared ” … that sections 13 and 16 of the [Sexual Offenses Act] are unconstitutional, illegal, null, void, invalid and of no effect to the extent that these laws criminalise any acts constituting consensual sexual conduct between adults” [R2.3].

On 23 January 2018, it was reported that a case brought by Jason Jones challenging the constitutionaliy of Sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offenses Act was listed for hearing in the High Court on 30 January [C2.2], [R2.1].