A significant appeal that will be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) on 8 July concerning colonial-era laws criminalising consensual same-sex intimacy in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
The case has potentially far-reaching implications. Given existing JCPC jurisprudence, there is a real possibility that the laws will be upheld. Such an outcome could have significant implications for LGBTQ+ individuals across the Caribbean and other regions where similar laws persist or are even currently being restated.
Colours Caribbean along other four Caribbean LGBTQ+ organisations has been granted permission to intervene in the proceedings, supported by Harvard Law School’s LGBTQI+ Advocacy Clinic and supported pro bono by leading counsel Adam Goldenberg of McCarthy in Toronto, Anna Hoffmann of 4 Pump Court and Anyo Law in London.
The international community is also coming to terms with anomaly and history of colonialism surrounding this case. A recent article by former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar questions the UK’s ongoing role in cases concerning colonial-era laws and its impact on the country’s reputation for supporting LGBTQ+ rights.
Leo Varadkar is right. This is particularly so where it is clear that laws criminalising same-sex relations are a grave violation of international law.
The hearing will take place in London, with UK Supreme Court judges presiding as members of the JCPC. Despite having two Caribbean members, neither has been selected for this panel. This situation raises questions about the UK’s continued constitutional involvement in former colonies and its influence over laws that criminalise same-sex intimacy.
Such laws not only risk prosecution but also perpetuate stigma, discrimination, and violence against LGBTQ+ people—issues recognised by international human rights bodies. The UK’s ongoing role in these matters is notable and difficult to comprehend, especially following its 2022 decision to withdraw Supreme Court judges from Hong Kong due to concerns about fundamental freedoms, in particular freedom of expression.
Let us hope that the Court prioritises justice, human rights, and the upholding of international law, helping to build a world in which the mere existence of LGBTQ+ communities is not treated as a crime.