Citation
Criminalising Private Consensual Intimacy II

Material Information

Title:
Criminalising Private Consensual Intimacy II An Updated Analysis the “BuggeryLaw” in Jamaica
Creator:
Glenroy Murray & Christopher Harper
Place of Publication:
Jamaica
Publisher:
J-FLAG
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
PDF document

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Caribbean Area, Jamaica ( lcsh )

Notes

Abstract:
INTRODUCTION It has been five years since the passage of the Jamaica Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Within that time, there has been significant developments in the jurisprudence on the buggery law. The decision in Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of New Delhi has been overruled by the Supreme Court of India, the landmark decision of Caleb Orozco v The Attorney General made the Belize Supreme Court the first in the region to strike down the buggery law and the Human Rights Committee has once again recommended the repeal of the buggery law. This paper serves of an update to research conducted in 2012 around the status of the buggery law within Jamaica and other nations across the world.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Caribbean IRN
Holding Location:
Caribbean IRN
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution.

UFDC Membership

Aggregations:
Caribbean IRN

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Proposal Valid to: 12.12.2016 AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF THE BUGGERY LAW IN JAMAICA by Glenroy Murray & Christopher Harper CRIMINALISING PRIVATE CONSENSUAL INTIMACY II

PAGE 2

J-FLAG Copyright 17 All rights reserved. No part of this manual may be reproduced in any form, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in review, without permission in writing from J-FLAG P.O Box 1152, Kingston 8 Jamaica Ph. 876 754-2130 Fax. 876 754-2113 email: admin@jag.org website: www.jag.org

PAGE 3

It has been ve years since the passage of the Jamaica Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Within that time, there has been signicant developments in the jurisprudence on the buggery law. The decision in Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of New Delhi has been overruled by the Supreme Court of India, the landmark decision of Caleb Orozco v The Attorney General made the Belize Supreme Court the rst in the region to strike down the buggery law and the Human Rights Committee has once again recommended the repeal of the buggery law. This paper serves of an update to research conducted in 2012 around the status of the buggery law within Jamaica and other nations across the world. INTRODUCTION 3

PAGE 4

WHICH SECTIONS OF THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS ACT OAPA 1864 CRIMINALIZE SEXUAL ACTIVITIES BETWEEN MEN? Taken together, sections 76, 77 and 79 of the OAPA 1864 present a strong prohibition against sexual activities between men. WHAT TYPES OF SEXUAL ACTIVITIES ARE CRIMINALIZED? Section 76 criminalizes buggery: the penetration of the anus of a man or woman by the penis of another man. It also criminalizes sexual intercourse with animals. It is irrelevant whether the sexual conduct was committed in public or private or whether the conduct was consensual or non-consensual. The sentence for buggery is a maximum of ten (10) years imprisonment with hard labour. It is noteworthy that the following forms of anal penetration is legal, except where it is nonconsensual per section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act (SOA) 2009: The penetration of the anus of a woman by an object controlled by another person or by a body part other than a penis. The penetration of the anus of a man by an object controlled by a woman or a womans body part. Section 77 criminalizes any attempt to commit buggery. It also criminalizes any unwanted touching of a man with the intention of committing buggery as well as any unwanted touching of one man by another man where the intent of that other man is sexual. The sentence for this offence is a maximum of seven (7) years imprisonment, with or without hard labour. Section 79 criminalizes acts of gross indecency carried out by a man with another man. Gross indecency is generally interpreted to mean mutual masturbation, oral sex, other forms genital stimulation and/or other similar types of sexual activities. However, the term gross indecency is so broad that any sexual and/or intimate act between two men that is deemed grossly indecent by an arresting ofcer or judge can lead to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, with or without hard labour. This can conceivably include kissing, hand-holding and other acts of male-to-male DOMESTIC LAWS CRIMINALIZING CONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES BETWEEN MEN 4

PAGE 5

intimacy. A man is liable if he is a party to the acts of gross indecency and/or he gets or attempts to get another man to commit the acts of gross indecency. WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING CHARGED, ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 76? The statistics related to reports, arrests and prosecution of buggery shows that the rate of prosecution is very low. In the period 2008 2010, only 57.5% of the reported cases of buggery resulted in arrest, and of those arrests, only 16.67% resulted in prosecutions consequently only 9.59% of the reported cases resulted in prosecution. The data collected for this period did not speak to how many of the prosecutions ended in conviction. In the period 20112015, 58.8% of the reported cases of buggery resulted in an arrest, and of those arrests, only 39.42% resulted in prosecutions and of those prosecutions, 52.4% resulted in convictions. Consequently, 12.15% of the reports resulted in convictions. The Table below gives the exact numbers. 2008 2010 2011 2015 REPORTS 73 354 ARRESTS 42 208 PROSECUTIONS 7 82 CONVICTIONS N/A 43 5

PAGE 6

The statistics for the period 2011-2015 also demonstrate that the persons primarily affected by the criminalization of anal sex as formulated in section 76 are not consenting adult males, but instead adult women and children who are victims of non-consensual anal penetration. Forced penile penetration of the vagina is deemed rape under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act, 2009. The sentence for rape is 15 years to life imprisonment. By treating forced anal penetration as a distinct offence, the law gives less protection to those women and children who experience this form of sexual violence. Of the 354 reported cases, only 7.62% (27 cases) involved an incident between two adult men. Of the 82 cases that were prosecuted, only 8.54% (7 cases) involved an incident between two adult men. Of the 43 convictions, only 4.65% (2 cases) involved an incident between two adult men. The table below gives a more thorough breakdown. VICTIMS Men Women Boys (Under 18) Girls (Under 18) Total Reports 27 52 153 122 354 Prosecutions 7 9 39 25 82 Convictions 2 3 27 10 43 Based on the data, boys who cannot be considered victims of rape under the law are the most affected population. 25 of the 39 prosecuted cases where the victims were boys, were incidents between adult male perpetrators and boys. Girls closely follow boys with the second highest number of cases. 18 of the 25 prosecuted cases where the victims were girls, were incidents between adult male perpetrators and girls. All the cases with adult victims were between themselves and adult male perpetrators. Beyond the criminalization of private consensual intimacy, the buggery law when paired with the Sexual Offences Act creates an unequal regime for protection against sexual violence. As the data shows, the real victims are women, children and youth. 6

PAGE 7

The data for this section was prepared by Jamaica Constabulary Force Statistics and Information Management Unit and the Ofce of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It should be noted that the data does not reect whether the cases between adults involved consensual intercourse. Since buggery is crime regardless of consent, the data collection process is not concerned with the fact of same. It should also be noted that the data related to the prosecution of cases between 2011 and 2015 did not include cases from the parishes of Trelawny and St. James. WHAT IS THE SITUATION IN THE REST OF THE COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN? Within the Commonwealth Caribbean, there are 6 countries which have repealed the laws criminalizing consensual same-sex intimacy, however 5 of these countries have a higher age of consent for same-sex activity. There are 6 countries which criminalize both male-to-male and female-to-female sexual activity. There are 4 countries which criminalize only male-to-male intimacy and Belize is the only country in which the laws have been struck down in Court. Within the region, Jamaica does not have the most discriminatory laws related to the criminalization of consensual same-sex intimacy; it is in the middle of the pack. COUNTRY LEGISLATION PROVISION MAX. SENTENCE IMPACT Anguilla The law was repealed in 2000. The age of consent for samesex sexual activity is higher than for heterosexual intercourse. Antigua & Barbuda Articles 12 & 15 of the Sexual Offences Act Article 12 criminalizes buggery, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Article 15 criminalizes serious indecency which is every sexual act outside of penile penetration of the vagina, unless done between a man and a woman over the age of 16. Buggery 15 years when committed between adults. Serious Indecency 5 years when committed between persons over 16. Both Maleto-male and female-to-female intimacy private consensual intimacy are criminalized. 7

PAGE 8

COUNTRY LEGISLATION PROVISION MAX. SENTENCE IMPACT Bahamas The law was repealed in 1991. Barbados Sections 9 & 12 of the Sexual Offences Act Section 9 criminalizes buggery, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Section 12 criminalizes serious indecency which is every sexual act outside of penile penetration of the vagina, unless done between a man and a woman over the age of 16. Buggery Life Imprisonment Serious Indecency 10 years when committed between persons over 16. Both Maleto-male and female-to-female intimacy private consensual intimacy are criminalized. Belize Section 53 of the Criminal Code Section 53 criminalizes unnatural crime which is carnal intercourse against the order of nature all sexual activity outside of penile penetration of the vagina. Unnatural Crime 10 years Both Maleto-male and female-to-female intimacy private consensual intimacy are criminalized. ( THIS HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN THE CALEB OROZCO CASE) Bermuda The law was repealed in 2000 by the Caribbean Territories (Criminal Law) Order. The age of consent for samesex sexual activity is higher than for heterosexual intercourse. British Virgin Islands The law was repealed in 2000 by the Caribbean Territories (Criminal Law) Order. The age of consent for samesex sexual activity is higher than for heterosexual intercourse. Cayman Islands The law was repealed in 2000 by the Caribbean Territories (Criminal Law) Order. The age of consent for samesex sexual activity is higher than for heterosexual intercourse. 8

PAGE 9

COUNTRY LEGISLATION PROVISION MAX. SENTENCE IMPACT Dominica Articles 14 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act Article 16 criminalizes buggery, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Article 14 criminalizes serious indecency which is every sexual act outside of penile penetration of the vagina, unless done between adult men and adult women. Buggery 10 years imprisonment and possible psychiatric treatment. Serious Indecency 5 years imprisonment Both Maleto-male and female-to-female intimacy private consensual intimacy are criminalized. Grenada Article 431 of the Criminal Code Article 431 criminalizes Unnatural Connection which is a vague description of penile penetration of parts of the body other than the vagina. Unnatural Connection 10 years imprisonment. Male-to-male intimacy is criminalized. Guyana Sections 352 and 354 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Section 354 criminalizes buggery, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Section 352 criminalizes men who commit acts of gross Indecency with a male person which is all forms of sexual activity and intimacy between men. Buggery Life Imprisonment Gross Indecency 2 years imprisonment Male-to-male intimacy is criminalized. Montserrat The law was repealed in 2000 by the Caribbean Territories (Criminal Law) Order. The age of consent for samesex sexual activity is higher than for heterosexual intercourse. 9

PAGE 10

COUNTRY LEGISLATION PROVISION MAX. SENTENCE IMPACT Saint Christopher & Nevis Section 56 of the Offences Against the Person Act Section 56 criminalizes buggery, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Buggery 10 years Imprisonment Male-to-male intimacy is criminalized. Saint Lucia Sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Code. Section 133 criminalizes buggery between men, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Section 132 criminalizes acts of gross indecency which is every sexual act outside of penile penetration of the vagina, unless done between adult men and adult women. Buggery 10 years Imprisonment Gross Indecency 10 years imprisonment on indictment, 5 years imprisonment on summary conviction Both Maleto-male and female-to-female intimacy private consensual intimacy are criminalized. Saint Vincent & the Grenadines Sections 146 and 148 of the Criminal Code. Section 146 criminalizes buggery, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Section 148 criminalizes acts of gross Indecency with persons of the same sex which is all forms of sexual activity and intimacy between persons of the same sex. Buggery 10 years Imprisonment Gross Indecency 5 years imprisonment Both Maleto-male and female-to-female intimacy private consensual intimacy are criminalized. 10

PAGE 11

COUNTRY LEGISLATION PROVISION MAX. SENTENCE IMPACT Trinidad & Tobago Sections 13 and 16 of the Criminal Code. Section 13 criminalizes buggery, whether in public or private, consensual or non-consensual. Section 16 criminalizes acts of serious indecency which is every sexual act outside of penile penetration of the vagina, unless done between men and women over the age of 16. Buggery 25 years Imprisonment Serious Indecency 5 years imprisonment Both Maleto-male and female-to-female intimacy private consensual intimacy are criminalized. Turks & Caicos Islands The law was repealed in 2000 by the Caribbean Territories (Criminal Law) Order. The age of consent for samesex sexual activity is higher than for heterosexual intercourse. 11

PAGE 12

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES & THE BUGGERY LAW Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the OAPA (and laws similar to it) are not consistent with the protection of human rights guaranteed in international human rights guaranteed in the International Bill of Human Rights. Consider the following provisions: HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND EQUALLY APPLIED Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights Article 2 Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 12

PAGE 13

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Article 17 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Article 26 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 13

PAGE 14

THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE The Human Rights Committee is the UN treaty body which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights which Jamaica ratied in 1975. It has considered the issue of sodomy laws and their compliance with the Covenant. Toonen v Australia (1994) (No.488/1992 CCPR/C/ 50/D/488/1992, March 31, 1994) An Australian citizen challenged a law similar to the buggery law in Tasmania. He brought the case before the Human Rights Committee on the basis that the law violated the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Committee held that the law violated the right to privacy guaranteed in Article 17. The Committee noted: [It] is undisputed that adult consensual sexual activity in private is covered by the concept of privacy The Committee considers that Sections 122(a), (c) and 123 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code interfere with the authors privacy, even if these provisions have not been enforced for a decade [Any] interference with privacy must be proportional to the end sought and be necessary in the circumstances of any given case. Considering further that these provisions are not currently enforced, which implies that they are not deemed essential to the protection of morals in Tasmania, the Committee concludes that the provisions do not meet the reasonableness test in the circumstances of the case, and that they arbitrarily interfere with Mr. Toonens right under article 17. The Committee did not therefore consider whether the sections violated the right to equality before the law having found the right to privacy breached. They noted however that the prohibition on sex discrimination in the Covenant under article 26 also prohibited sexual orientation discrimination. 14

PAGE 15

Concluding Observations on Jamaica The Human Rights Committee in their 3rd and 4th periodic review of Jamaicas compliance with the iCCPR in 2011 and 2016, respectively have recommended the repeal of laws criminalizing same-sex sexual intimacy. The recommendations are as follows: In 2011: The Committee is also concerned that the State party continues to retain provisions under the Offences against the Person Act which criminalises consensual same-sex relationships, thus promoting discrimination against homosexuals. The State party should decriminalize sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex, in order to bring its legislation into line with the Covenant and put an end to prejudices and the social stigmatization of homosexuality. In 2016: The Committee also reiterates its concern that the State party continues to retain provisions under the Offences against the Person Act that criminalizes consensual same-sex relationships, thus promoting discrimination against homosexuals. It should decriminalize sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex to bring its legislation in compliance with the Covenant and put an end to prejudices and social stigmatization of homosexuality. 15

PAGE 16

INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE & THE ANTI-BUGGERY LAW There have been several judgements from national courts across the world which outline how laws similar to section 76 violate human rights law, particularly the rights to privacy, dignity, equality and non-discrimination and the freedom of expression. Belize (2016) Caleb Orozco v The Attorney General of Belize (Supreme Court Claim No. 668 of 2010) The Supreme Court of Belize found that section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code was in violation of the rights to dignity, privacy, freedom of expression and the right to equality and read it down to not apply to consensual sexual activity between adults. The Chief Justice reasoned that the reference to God in the preamble to the Bill of Rights did not mean that Christian values were privileged. He further reasoned that the stigmatization of homosexuality caused by criminalization was a violation of the right to dignity and that the right to equality was breached as section 53 made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and therefore there was sexual orientation discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the prohibition on sex discrimination included sexual orientation discrimination relying on the ruling in Toonen v Australia India (2014) Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1 The Supreme Court of India overruled the decision of the New Delhi High Court which held that Section 377 of the Penal Code was in violation of the rights to equality and non-discrimination. The Supreme Court held that there was no discrimination because the section criminalized activity irrespective of who committed it. It ignored that the section disproportionately affected LGBT persons. United States of America (2003) Lawrence v Texas (539 U.S. 558 (2003)) The Supreme Court of the United States held that the sodomy law in Texas which criminalized samesex sexual intimacy was in violation of the due process clause of the United States constitution by violating the right to privacy of homosexuals. The sodomy laws in Texas, and by extension the other 13 states in which they existed, were invalidated. 16

PAGE 17

South Africa (1998) National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others (CCT11/98) [1998] ZACC 15 The Constitutional Court of South Africa held that section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act which criminalizes sexual acts between men violates the right to dignity, equality before the law and privacy. The South African Constitution guarantees equality before the law and explicitly prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The Court acknowledged that the criminalization of private consensual same-sex intimacy has a harmful impact on the lives of LGBT persons as it stigmatizes them and legitimizes their discrimination. Northern Ireland (1981) Dudgeon v The United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 5 The European Court of Human Rights found that sections 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act were in breach of article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights which guarantees the right to respect for private life. These sections criminalized buggery and sexual activity between men. The Court reasoned that the criminalization of same-sex intimacy was not necessary in a free democratic society, even in the interest of public morality. The fact that many persons in society see homosexuality as morally repugnant does not provide a justication for criminalizing same, given the stigma and discrimination that criminalization perpetuates. 17

PAGE 18

IMPACT OF CHARTER OF RIGHTS ON SECTION 76, 77 AND 79 RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND FAMILY LIFE AND PRIVACY OF THE HOME The right to privacy and family life and privacy of the home is guaranteed under section 13(2)(j) of the Charter, namely the right of everyone to: i. protection from search of the person and property; ii. respect for and protection of private and family life, and privacy of the home; and iii. protection of privacy of other property and of communication; ITS MEANING AND IMPLICATION FOR SECTION 76, 77 AND 79: The right to be left alone should be seen not simply as a negative right to occupy a private sphere free from government intrusion, but as a right to get on with ones life, expression of self and the ability to make fundamental decisions about intimate relationships without penalisation. Privacy must be regarded as suggesting at least some responsibility on the state to promote conditions in which personal self-realisation can take place. These sections inherently stipulate that either the aggrieved party respects the law and refrains from engaging even in private with consenting male partners in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his/her homosexual tendencies, or he commits such acts and thereby becomes liable to criminal prosecution. The very existence of such legislation continuously and directly affects ones private life. The cases of Dudgeon and Orozco indicated that this violation of the right to privacy is not justied by dominant views of morality within a given society. Criminalization of private consensual same-sex intimacy is disproportionate because of its impact on the private lives of LGBT persons. As far as sections 76, 77 and 79 impinges on a homosexual mans right to engage in private and consensual sexual activities with another adult, they are in violation of the right to private and family life and privacy of the home. 18

PAGE 19

THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND OF BEING MALE OR FEMALE The Right to Freedom from discrimination on the ground of being male or female is protected under Section 13(2)(i)(i) of the Charter; this is recognised as the non-discrimination clause. ITS MEANING AND IMPLICATION FOR SECTION 76, 77 AND 79: The law should not differentiate between persons on the basis of them being male or female. The law can either be expressly unfair or unfair in its effect. It must be noted that the language of being male or female was specically chosen over words like sex and gender to avoid the ruling in Toonen which would prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. This ruling was followed in Orozco as the Belize Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. It is unclear how this provision will be interpreted, whether it will be treated as meaning the same as sex discrimination or something completely different. The implication is therefore that section 76 may not be seen as being discriminatory on the basis of being male or female because it is a general prohibition on penile penetration of the anus. Sections 77 & 79 however may be seen as discriminatory on the basis of being male or female because the provisions specically speak to same-sex sexual activities involving men and not same-sex sexual activity between women. THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW The Right to Equality before the law is protected under section 13(2)(g) of the Charter ITS MEANING AND IMPLICATION FOR SECTION 76, 77 AND 79: The primary mission of the equality clause is the protection of a society in which all are secure in the knowledge that they are recognised at law as human beings equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. The right to equal protection of the law requires that the laws themselves be equal. 19

PAGE 20

The right to equality is broader than the right to non-discrimination as it is not limited to prohibiting only some forms of discrimination. It guarantees equality to all persons. As such, it can be reasonably argued that where laws discriminate on the basis of any status, including sexual orientation or gender identity, then these laws are in violation of section 13(3)(g). Therefore sections 76, 77 and 79 which are aimed at prohibiting sexual intimacy between gay men, violate the right to equality in that they criminalise consensual sexual intimacy between gay men. IS THE GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIED IN KEEPING SECTIONS 76, 77 AND 79 ON THE BOOKS EVEN THOUGH THEY VIOLATE RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE CHARTER? No right is absolute. Section 13(2)(a) of the Charter allows the individuals rights to be limited but only if the limitation is justiable in a free and democratic society. The ruling in Dudgeon notes that some degree of regulation of male homosexual conduct can be justied in a free and democratic society if it is done to provide sufcient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are especially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of special physical, ofcial or economic dependence. In assessing whether limitations on rights can be justied, the general test is whether the limitations pursue a legitimate aim and whether the limitations are proportionate to the aim being pursued. For the limitation to be valid, the legislative objective must be sufciently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; the measures designed to meet the legislative objective must be rationally connected to it and the limitation of the right must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective. In some cases there is a fourth consideration and that is whether the law has met the overriding consideration of the need to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the society and those of the individual and groups affected. While there may be a legitimate reason for criminalizing some forms of same-sex sexual acitivity as noted in Dudgeon it is doubtful that there is any discernable objective for the criminalisation of anal sexual intercourse between consenting adult males in private other than the enforcement of private moral opinions of a section of the community. Even if a legitimate aim is established, the aim is far outweighed by the harmful and prejudicial impact it has on gay men. Criminalization is therefore disproportionate. Sections 76, 77 and 79 of the OAPA violate rights in the Charter and cannot be justied. 20

PAGE 21

EFFECT OF THE SAVINGS LAW CLAUSE ON SECTIONS 76, 77 AND 79 NATURE OF SAVINGS LAW CLAUSE Section 13(12) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that: Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law in force immediately before the commencement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2011, relating to a. sexual offences; b. obscene publications; or c. offences regarding the life of the unborn, shall be held to be inconsistent with or incontravention of the provisions of this Chapter. The general savings law clause provides immunity to the specic group of laws indicated above provided that they were in force before the new Charter was enacted in 2011. The fact that the old general savings law clause was removed and replaced with one that specically immunizes which are subject to great controversy including the buggery law is quite telling. The intention of s. 13(12) is therefore plain. It serves to put beyond judicial review controversial laws criminalising buggery, abortion and pornography. Section 13(12) creates exceptions to the rights regime which has undoubtedly given more ample protection to equality and privacy rights. This regime has been relevant to women and sexual minorities who historically faced discrimination treatment under colonial laws and were excluded from the protection of the independence constitution. This savings provision thereby neutralises the benet of a bill of rights and has been rightly described as profoundly anti-constitutional. 21

PAGE 22

EFFECT OF THE SAVINGS LAW CLAUSE Sections 76, 77 and 79 though violating rights enshrined in the Charter without any reasonable justication cannot be challenged in the constitutional court. This therefore institutionalizes the discrimination of gay men and by extension LGBT persons as these laws are given constitutional legitimacy. Sections 76, 77 and 79 can only be amended through the legislature. The savings law clause acts as barrier to LGBT Jamaicans being full and equal citizens. It is for this reason that the Human Rights Committee in reviewing Jamaicas compliance with the ICCPR in 2016, recommended that: Saving clauses in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms relating to the Offences of the Persons Act and Sexual Offences Act should be removed where they obstruct the amendment of legislation that enhances the rights of women or any other group. 22

PAGE 23

CONCLUSION Sections 76 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act, insofar as it criminalizes consensual intimacy between adults, and particularly between men, is in agrant breach of the rights to equality before the law, non-discrimination on the basis of being male or female and privacy as guaranteed in the Jamaica Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. This argument is supported by jurisprudence across the world and within international human rights law. In fact, the Human Rights Committee has consistently recommended that Jamaica repeal of laws criminalizing consensual intercourse between adults, to be in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Charter of Rights prevents individuals from challenging these laws by a virtue of a savings law clause in section 13(12). The Human Rights Committee has now called for the amendment of same as it act as a barrier to the full enjoyment of the rights of minorities. From a regional perspective, Jamaica is not the most homophobic place on earth or in the Caribbean. We are in the middle of the pack, as we do not criminalize intimacy between two women, nor do we criminalize cross-dressing. Notwithstanding that, the statistical reality is that the criminalization of anal sex in its current form affects women, children and youth far more than it affects gay men. It is therefore incumbent on Parliament to rectify the situation to provide better protection for these populations. The retention of the buggery hurts the wider population more than it helps those who would not see any movement towards equality for LGBT Jamaicans. 23

PAGE 24

APPENDIX 2015 2014 2013 Child (0-17 Yrs) Adult Child (0-17 Yrs) Adult Child (0-17 Yrs) Adult Child (0-17 Yrs) Adult Child (0-17 Yrs) Adult PARISH M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Kingston 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 6 2 1 0 7 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 St. Andrew 5 3 1 1 10 4 1 3 8 3 0 4 7 12 3 2 4 1 3 1 St. Catherine 5 6 0 2 6 6 4 1 7 4 1 6 7 5 0 2 0 0 0 1 St. James 0 2 0 2 3 2 0 3 2 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 Trelawny 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Westmoreland 2 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Hanover 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 St. Mary 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 St. Ann 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 Portland 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Manchester 2 2 0 0 6 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clarendon 5 1 0 0 5 3 0 2 2 7 1 1 9 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 St. Elizabeth 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Thomas 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 26 24 1 8 49 26 15 29 32 19 41 8 7 8 7 6 3 BUGGERY OFFENCES REPORTED FOR YEARS 2011 2015 BY GENDER AND PARISH 24

PAGE 25

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Kingston 0 0 2 2 2 5 2 2 0 1 St. Andrew 0 1 5 4 2 2 2 6 1 4 St. Catherine 1 0 1 9 6 2 3 7 2 10 St. James 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 6 0 2 Trelawny 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 Westmoreland 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 3 Hanover 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 St. Mary 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 2 St. Ann 1 1 0 3 1 3 3 2 0 1 Portland 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 2 1 0 Manchester 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 Clarendon 0 0 1 7 1 2 2 6 1 4 St. Elizabeth 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 St. Thomas 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 3 1 2 Total 2 4 11 33 22 24 28 38 11 35 PERSONS ARRESTED FOR BUGGERY FOR YEARS 2011 TO 2015 BY PARISH 25

PAGE 26

PROSECUTION OF BUGGERY FOR THE YEARS 2011 RURAL PARISHES NO. NAME OF ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER M/F AC CUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT SENTENCE 1 DM Saint Ann K M Female Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 2 NT Saint Ann ST Female Adult Minor Guilty 10 years imprisonment 3 AM, JB & KC Saint Ann JT Male Not guilty, discharged 4 KB Saint Ann BV N/A Adult N/A Guilty 5 years imprisonment 5 MK Saint Ann NW Male Adult Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment 6 JG Saint Ann NC Female Adult Adult Guilty 15 years imprisonment 7 JV Saint Ann JD N/A Adult N/A Nolle prosequi entered 8 RC Westmore land NB Male Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 9 LB Westmore land JB Female Adult Adult Not guilty, discharged 10 MJ Westmore land SL Female Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 11 WD Saint Elizabeth AB Female Adult Adult Not guilty, discharged 12 CQ Saint Elizabeth LH M Adult Adult Not guilty, discharged 13 AJ Saint Elizabeth SJ Male Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 14 DW Saint Mary RN Male Adult Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment 15 AL Saint Mary TJ Male Adult Adult Guilty 10 years imprisonment 16 LD Saint Mary RH Female Adult Adult Not guilty, discharged 17 TO Saint Mary RS Male Adult Minor Guilty 2 years imprisonment 18 RH Saint Mary SH Male Adult Minor Guilty 10 years imprisonment 19 RW Clarendon DM Male Minor Minor Not guilty, discharged 26

PAGE 27

NO. NAME OF ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER M/F AC CUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT SENTENCE 20 DS Clarendon DM Male Minor Minor Guilty Probation Order3 years 21 OM Clarendon JT JT Female Female Adult Adult Minor Minor Not guilty, discharged 22 JB Clarendon BS Male Adult Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment 23 LR Clarendon TR Female Adult Minor Conditional Nolle Prosequi entered 24 AJ Clarendon RT Male Minor Minor Guilty Probation Order 3 years 25 CG Clarendon TR Male Minor Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment at hard labour 26 AD Clarendon SY Female Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 27 JB Clarendon SA Female Adult Minor Guilty 12 months imprisonment at hard labour, suspended for 2 years 28 KP Clarendon RP Male Adult Minor Guilty 12 months imprisonment 29 EW Clarendon AW Female Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 30 WD Clarendon TR Female Minor Minor Guilty Probation Order 3 years 31 CB Clarendon RW Male Adult Minor Guilty 4 years imprisonment 32 PC Hanover JC Female Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 33 WG Manchester PG Female Adult Adult Not guilty, discharged 34 DR Manchester TW Female Adult Minor Guilty 9 years imprisonment at hard labour 35 HS Manchester BS Male Adult Adult Not guilty, discharged 36 SB Saint Thomas TE Male Minor Minor Guilty 3 years Probation Order Release into custody 37 BH Portland MP Female Adult Minor Not guilty, discharged 38 KB Portland DD Male Minor Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment 27

PAGE 28

NO. NAME OF ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER M/F AC CUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT SENTENCE 39 CW Portland TM Male Adult Minor Guardianship 40 RW Saint Catherine DJ Male Adult Minor Guilty 6 years imprisonment 41 OB Saint Catherine CW Female Adult Adult Guilty 7 years imprisonment 42 JB Saint Catherine ST Female Minor Minor Guilty Probation Order 2 years 43 EC Saint Catherine WR Male Adult Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment at hard labour 44 ML Saint Catherine OG Male Adult Minor Discharged 45 DL Saint Catherine PL Male Adult Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment 46 MS Saint Catherine OJ Male Adult Minor Guilty Probation Order 3 years 47 KM Saint Catherine RF Male Adult Adult Nolle Prosequi not entered 48 RR Saint Catherine RS Male Adult Minor Guilty 3 years imprisonment 49 EW Saint Catherine NF Female Adult Adult Guilty 15 years imprisonment to serve 10 years before eligible for parole 50 RM Saint Catherine TC Male Adult Minor Guilty 7 years imprisonment 51 KM Saint Catherine NM Female Adult Minor Guilty 4 years imprisonment 52 HM Saint Catherine CW Female Adult Minor Nolle Prosequi entered 53 WT Saint Catherine RT Male Adult Not guilty, discharged 54 PB Saint Catherine AH Male Adult Adult Conditional Nolle Prosequi entered 55 AB Saint Catherine KW Male Adult Minor Correction Order 56 AD Saint Catherine AD Male Adult Adult Guilty 8 years imprisonment 28

PAGE 29

PROSECUTION OF BUGGERY MATTERS FOR THE YEAR 2011 KINGSTON & ST ANDREW ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER (M/F) ACCUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT VERDICT A.O.A KINGSTON K.M FEMALE ADULT (24 YRS) ADULT (21 YRS) NOT GUILTY A.H ST. ANDREW S.H FEMALE ADULT (59 YRS) MINOR (7 YRS) NOT GUILTY R. A ST. ANDREW L.P FEMALE ADULT (19 YRS) MINOR (13 YRS) NOT GUILTY T. R KINGSTON O.B MALE MINOR (13 YRS) MINOR (12 YRS) GUILTY 3 YEARS PROBATION ORDER AND PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT PROSECUTION OF BUGGERY MATTERS FOR THE YEAR 2012 KINGSTON & ST ANDREW ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER (M/F) ACCUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT VERDICT C.A KINGSTON D.B MALE ADULT (18 YRS) MINOR (11 YRS) GUILTY 3 YEARS PROBATION ORDER D.F KINGSTON D.P MALE MINOR (16 YRS) MINOR (12 YRS) GUILTY 2 YEARS PROBATION ORDER D.F KINGSTON A.M MALE MINOR (16 YRS) MINOR (9 YRS) NOT GUILTY H.M ST. ANDREW O.B MALE ADULT (38 YRS) MINOR (13 YRS) NOT GUILTY 29

PAGE 30

PROSECUTION OF BUGGERY MATTERS FOR THE YEAR 2014 KINGSTON & ST ANDREW ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER (M/F) ACCUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT VERDICT J.S ST. ANDREW C.W MALE ADULT (18 YRS) MINOR (17 YRS) ADMONISHED & DISCHARGED O.J KINGSTON A.M MALE MINOR (15 YRS) MINOR (4 YRS) NO EVIDENCE OFFERED J.B KINGSTON M.A MALE MINOR (15 YRS) MINOR (10 YRS) GUILTY 3 YEARS PROBATION ORDER O.J ST. ANDREW T.P MALE ADULT (40 YRS) MINOR (21 YRS) ACCUSED DIED PROSECUTION OF BUGGERY MATTERS FOR THE YEAR 2013 KINGSTON & ST ANDREW ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER (M/F) ACCUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT VERDICT R.S KINGSTON O.P MALE MINOR (13 YRS) MINOR (15 YRS) GUILTY 3 YEARS PROBATION ORDER A.S & H.M KINGSTON S.C FEMALE ADULT (32 YRS) ADULT (33 YRS) ADULT (29 YRS) NOT GUILTY C.G KINGSTON M.D MALE ADULT (40 YRS) MINOR (13 YRS) GUILTY 15 YEARS IMPRISONMENT 30

PAGE 31

PROSECUTION OF BUGGERY MATTERS FOR THE YEAR 2014 KINGSTON & ST ANDREW ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER (M/F) ACCUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT VERDICT E.L ST. ANDREW T.L FEMALE ADULT (54YRS) MINOR (15YRS) NOLLE PROSEQUI ENTERED ON THE AVAIABILITY OF THE WITNESS T.L S.S ST. ANDREW S.W FEMALE MINOR (16YRS) MINOR (16YRS) GUILTY COUNT 1 -3 YEARS IMPRISONMENT COUNT 2I YEAR IMPRISONMENT COUNT 3 3 YEARS IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY J.W KINGSTON M.M FEMALE ADULT (28YRS) MINOR (11YRS) GUILTY 25 YEARS IMPRISONMENT L.W KINGSTON O.M MALE ADULT (45 YRS) MINOR (12YRS) NOLLE PROSEQUI ENTERED ON THE FITNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT O.M TO GIVE EVIDENCE P.D ST. ANDREW L.B MALE MINOR (17YRS) MINOR (5YRS) NOLE PROSEQUI ENTERED ON THE AVAILABILTY OF L.B TO GIVE EVIDENCE R.B ST. ANDREW H.J MALE MINOR (15YRS) MINOR (10YRS) DISCHARGED L.B KINGSTON T.L FEMALE ADULT 38YRS) MINOR (7YRS) GUILTY COUNT 1 12YEARS IMPRISONMENT COUNT 2 6 YEARS IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY 31

PAGE 32

ACCUSED PARISH COM PLAINANT COM PLAINANT GENDER (M/F) ACCUSED MINOR/ ADULT COM PLAINANT MINOR/ ADULT VERDICT T.B KINGSTON G.W MALE MINOR (14YRS) MINOR (4YRS) GUILTY 2 YEARS PROBATION ORDERMASTER T.B TO RECIEVE COUNSELLING MUST BE EXCEMPTED FROM REGISTRATION AS A SEX OFFENDER M.J ST. ANDREW P.P FEMALE MINOR (13YRS) MINOR (13YRS) DISCHARGED J.A KINGSTON S.W FEMALE MINOR (17YRS) MINOR (12YRS) GUILTY COUNT 1: 3 YEARS PROBATION ORDER COUNT 2: 3 YEARS AT HARD LABOUR B.W KINGSTON R.S FEMALE MINOR (14YRS) MINOR (12 YRS) MATTER REMITTED TO FAMILY COURT 32

PAGE 33

NOTES 33

PAGE 34

NOTES 34


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ER7V7KL9Y_48AZQV INGEST_TIME 2017-06-28T21:54:01Z PACKAGE AA00054852_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES