Trinidad & Tobago

Consensual same-sex intimacy in Trinidad and Tobago was originally criminalised under the Offences Against the Person Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’), which prohibited buggery, with a term of five years imprisonment, and gross indecency between males, with a term of two years imprisonment. The law was inherited from the British during the colonial period, in which the English criminal law was imposed upon Trinidad and Tobago.

In 1976, the current Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago was adopted. The Constitution includes a ‘savings law clause’, in other words, a clause that provides that laws that existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution cannot be invalidated by the courts, even if they violate fundamental human rights. The savings law clause also provides that where an existing law has been modified by a subsequent enactment, and that enactment goes further in violating fundamental rights than the existing law did, then the provisions of the existing law must substitute the provisions of the enactment. 

In 1986, the Sexual Offences Act (‘the 1986 Act’) was adopted to repeal and replace the laws relating to sexual crimes.  This Act prohibits buggery under section 13 with a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years, and ‘serious indecency’ under section 16, extending this prohibition to women, with a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. In 2018, the High Court ruled that sections 13 and 16 of the 1986 Act were unconstitutional, despite the savings law clause, and consequently ‘null’ and ‘void’.  

In 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General’s appeal against the 2018 High Court ruling. The Court found that the savings law clause in the Constitution prevents the 1925 laws from being reviewed by the courts. However, as the 1986 Act went further in violating fundamental rights than the ‘existing’ 1925 law, the harsher provisions of that Act must be substituted with the lesser provisions of the 1925 Act. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s order is that consensual same-sex intimacy is again criminalised in Trinidad and Tobago, between males only, with maximum penalties of five years for ‘buggery’ and two years for ‘gross indecency’.

There is no evidence of the law being enforced. Nevertheless, the mere existence of this provision is itself a violation of human rights and underpins further acts of discrimination (see further).  

2025

In March 2025, the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago ruled that the savings clause contained in the Constitution did apply, overturning the decision of the High Court in 2018. It reasoned that the 1986 Act was a modification of the 1925 Act, rather than a ‘new’ law as had been argued by the Claimant and accepted by the High Court, and so the savings law clause applied. The Court found however that the modifications of the 1986 Act, which included stiffer custodial sentences, the inclusion of women in the crime of serious indecency and the change of name from ‘gross’ indecency to ‘serious’ indecency, went further in violating fundamental rights than the ‘existing’ 1925 law. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the savings law clause required the harsher provisions of the 1986 Act to be substituted by the lesser provisions of the original 1925 Act. The Court of Appeal held that it is for Parliament to repeal the criminalisation of buggery and the related offence of gross indecency by legislation. 

2018

In April 2018, the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago ruled that sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act were unconstitutional and thus null and void. The Court found that the criminalising provisions were not saved by the savings law clause, and held that the Claimant’s fundamental rights were infringed, particularly his rights to equality before the law, respect for his private and family life, and freedom of thought and expression. Further, the impugned sections were not reasonably justifiable in a society that has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

The High Court remarked that ‘it is unfortunate when society in any way values a person or gives a person their identity based on their race, colour, gender, age or sexual orientation…To now deny a perceived minority their right to humanity and human dignity would be to continue this type of thinking, this type of perceived superiority based on the genuinely held beliefs of some.’ It concluded that the court must and will uphold the Constitution to recognise the dignity of even one citizen whose rights and freedoms have been invalidly taken away. 

This section will be updated soon. 

This section will be updated soon.

The country profiles on the Human Dignity Trust’s website are developed through a combination of in-house expertise and research, including monitoring media reports; sourcing reports from partners and stakeholders; and reviewing reports from governments and other human rights organisations.

We go to great lengths to ensure that, to the best of our knowledge, the information provided on our website is correct and up to date. If you believe that any information on our website is inaccurate, you may bring this to our attention by e-mailing administrator@humandignitytrust.org.

Information on this website is provided for general use only and should not be relied on as a definitive position on the law as it applies at any given time. No liability can be accepted for any use of the information in this website and/or links from it.