EOC joins advocate’s gay rights challenge

The first hearing of the constitutional claim came up before Justice Devindra Rampersad in the Port of Spain High Court yesterday.

It has been adjourned to next Friday and will be heard in the San Fernando High Court.

At yesterday’s brief sitting, attorneys for the EOC informed Justice Rampersad of their intent to join the proceedings as an interested party.

And although the Solicitor General’s Department was served notice of the lawsuit and yesterday’s hearing date, there was no legal representative present to appear on behalf of the Attorney General, who is the defendant in the claim. Jones’ constitutional claim challenges Sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalises buggery and serious indecency even between consenting adults.

“The very existence of these sections continuously and directly affects the claimant’s private life by forcing him to either respect the law and refrain from engaging __ even in private with consenting male partners __ in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his homosexual orientation, or to commit the prohibited acts and thereby become liable to criminal prosecution,” Jones’ fixed date claim form states.

Jones is also claiming that the long-standing legislation contravenes his constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of thought and expression in addition to being in direct contradiction to this country’s international human rights obligation.

His lawyers are also contending that the legislation opens his client to public prejudice and ridicule as it labels him and other homosexuals as criminals.

“He is accordingly the subject of extensive societal prejudice, persecution, marginalisation, a lifelong entrenched stigma that he is an unapprehended criminal by virtue of being homosexual and he experiences the lifelong fear of being punished for expressing his sexuality through consensual conduct with another adult,” the lawsuit adds.

He is being represented by Richard Drabble, QC, Rishi Dass and Antonio Emmanuel.

The lawyers will also argue that since the controversial legislation amended in 1986 and 2000 repealed and replaced pre-Independence sexual offences legislation, covered by the savings clause, it is open to review