13-05-2026, 04:05 AM
![[Image: lZEcvv1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/lZEcvv1.png)
Federal Court strikes down homophobic law as unconstitutional; CoG signals intent to appeal
![[Image: LGBT.jpg]](https://mlavawteztbj.i.optimole.com/w:1200/h:800/q:mauto/f:best/https://antiguanewsroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LGBT.jpg)
Members of the LGBTQ+ community gather in Port Bradford to celebrate the court's decision on Alleyne's now-quashed conviction
In a monumental decision handed down by the Federal Court of Appeal earlier this week, same-sex relations between two consenting adults could soon be decriminalised after the court struck down a colonial-era provision and quashed the buggery conviction of an Eastern Voronan man, finding that the law was incompatible with constitutional guarantees of privacy, dignity and equality of persons. Justice Renée Celestin-Farrow of the Federal Court of Appeal, in a judgment spanning 74 pages, found that the prosecution of Jaymeon Alleyne, a 34-year-old registered nurse convicted last year by the Straugh District Court on a charge arising from a complaint by a neighbour, was void. Represented by the Voronan Civil Liberties Union, Mr Alleyne, who had been on conditional bail pending the constitutional challenge, stated that the High Court’s decision was a major relief after nearly eighteen months of legal proceedings and public scrutiny. His attorneys, Nadia St. Clair, SC and Emmanuel Baptiste, described the ruling as a watershed moment for Vorona, offering that it could fundamentally reshape how the state and the public at large view the nation’s sizeable, yet unseen LGBTQ+ community. “This judgment affirms that constitutional rights are not conditional and are not determined by the court of public opinion,” St. Clair told reporters assembled outside the Hall of Justice in Straughn shortly after the ruling was delivered. “For decades, these provisions existed primarily as tools of fear and intimidation against vulnerable citizens. Today, the court has made clear that this law, or at least parts of it, is unconstitutional.”
In her verbal comments following rejection of the conviction, Justice Celestin-Farrow explained that the state had not demonstrated ‘any legitimate public interest sufficient enough to justify the criminalisation of consensual conduct between adults in private’, adding that the law’s application constituted ‘differential treatment’ on the basis of sex that the Constitution does not permit. In her more detailed 74-page judgment, Celestin-Farrow concluded that Section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act represented “a relic of colonial governance which was fundamentally at odds with the constitutional order of modern Voronan society,” noting that the provision originated not from indigenous legal tradition but from Luthorian statutes imposed within the country during imperial rule. Notably, its origins rest in the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, with significant borrowing from the Buggery Act, which made sodomy a capital offence in Luthorian colonies and formed the basis for the subsequent criminalisation of same-sex relations across the HLE’s colonial frontier. “The mere fact that a section of society may disapprove of certain private conduct cannot, in and of itself, provide the state with the constitutional justification to criminalise it,” the judgment read. The judgment also rejected arguments advanced by prosecutors that the legislation, although one of many symbols of a bygone and otherwise regressive era, was gender-neutral in wording and therefore non-discriminatory in effect. Justice Celestin-Farrow observed that, in practice, despite the handful of occasions where Section 17 had been applied, it had been overwhelmingly against men in same-sex relationships. This, when placed alongside her rejection of the “public morality argument”, wherein she held that the state had not produced any evidence to suggest that the private act captured by Section 17 produced measurable harm to any identifiable person or to public order, ultimately led the court to conclude that the provision contradicted the guaranteed liberties established under the constitution.
Since Thursday, the judgment has drummed up significant debate within Vorona, drawing out numerous comments from varying groups offering their reaction to the verdict and its implications. The Voronan Interfaith Council, which is a largely informal gathering of the various religious organisations within Vorona, from the Aurorian Patriarchal Church to Geraja pundits, issued a statement within hours of the ruling, expressing what it described as “grave concern” at the court’s finding and calling on Parliament to restore the provision. The Council’s statement noted that while it respected the independence of the judiciary, it believed that questions related to LGBTQ+ affairs in Vorona ought to be made by the nation’s Parliament, given the “supremacy of democratic will over judicial determination.” Moderator-General the Rev. Ezekiel Hutchinson told reporters that the grouping would be consulting its legal advisors on whether it had any standing to intervene in the appeal as an interested party. Within the LGBTQ+ community, the response was one of relief tempered by what several advocates and activists described as the awareness that Thursday’s ruling was the beginning of a potentially long and arduous uphill battle. Marcus Haynes, a Senior Researcher at the Marigny Institute, Vorona’s leading LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation, stated that since the ruling, there had been a ‘shift’ within the community, with many being more hopeful for the future, especially given the fact that the ruling triggered similar challenges to other parts of the Sexual Offences Act and other laws at large. The response from the general public has been relatively mixed, with some expressing emotions from indifference to outright disgust in the judgment. “One setta bulla’ man in d’place dawg. Dis is ah God-fearing country. D’bible say a man mustn’t couple wit’ another man,” one man, who refused to give his name, said. “Plenty ah people rell uncomfortable wit where dis place going, but dey fraid to talk now cause soon as yuh say anyting, is a setta muddacunt label. Fire bun dat!” Beverly Ragoonanan, an accounting clerk within the Department of the Treasury and Finance, said that she felt no animosity towards the LGBTQ+ community. “Mi nuh really have no hate inna mi heart fi nobody. Dat just nuh deh inna mi nature. Mi try not fi judge people because at di end of di day, a who mi fi pass judgement pon anybody? Thursday night, mi son, him twenty now, him sit mi down and tell mi seh him gay. An’ honestly, mi tink mi have whole heap fi learn still. Mi grow up one way, hearing certain tings all mi life, but dat still a mi son. Nothing cyah change dat.”
Despite the judgment, both Attorney-General Hayden Ross and Secretary for Democratic Institutions Christopher Richardson confirmed that the CoG intended to advance an appeal to the Constitutional Court at the earliest convenience. At an impromptu press conference held on the staircase of the Hall of Justice in Port Bradford, Secretary Richardson clarified that the government was not appealing the judgment to restore the conviction or to defend Section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act, but was instead interested in the certainty of a Constitutional Court decision. “An appellate court judgement, however well-reasoned, is not binding to every court in Vorona. Only the Constitutional Court can close this question permanently. Our position [the government’s position] is not that Justice Celestin-Farrow was wrong; it is quite the opposite. Our position is that the Constitutional Court must say the same thing, so that there is no ambiguity remaining anywhere in the system,” Secretary Richardson explained. The announcement was nonetheless met with immediate scepticism from advocates and members of Alleyne’s legal team, who suggested that the government’s intention to appeal the judgment amounted to a clear effort to prolong proceedings while avoiding direct political responsibility for the decriminalisation issue. Speaking via telephone, Nadia St. Clair stated that although the VCLU welcomed the government’s apparent acceptance of the judgment’s reasoning, it was nonetheless cautious about the practical consequences of an appeal. “I’m always concerned whenever the government says it agrees with a judgment while simultaneously seeking to challenge it,” St. Clair remarked. “For Mr Alleyne, this case has already consumed nearly two years of his life; time I don’t think he will be able to get back.” Emmanuel Baptiste offered a more pointed response, suggesting that the appeal risked appearing “politically convenient”, especially in the eyes of those who may not have been as fortunate as Mr Alleyne to receive such robust legal representation. “If the government truly accept that Section 17 is unconstitutional, then one must ask why it cannot simply decline to enforce the provision and repeal the legislation,” he said. “There are many people who will inevitably view this as an attempt at stretching out the process while protecting politicians from the fallout associated with ‘killing’ this law.”
In her verbal comments following rejection of the conviction, Justice Celestin-Farrow explained that the state had not demonstrated ‘any legitimate public interest sufficient enough to justify the criminalisation of consensual conduct between adults in private’, adding that the law’s application constituted ‘differential treatment’ on the basis of sex that the Constitution does not permit. In her more detailed 74-page judgment, Celestin-Farrow concluded that Section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act represented “a relic of colonial governance which was fundamentally at odds with the constitutional order of modern Voronan society,” noting that the provision originated not from indigenous legal tradition but from Luthorian statutes imposed within the country during imperial rule. Notably, its origins rest in the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, with significant borrowing from the Buggery Act, which made sodomy a capital offence in Luthorian colonies and formed the basis for the subsequent criminalisation of same-sex relations across the HLE’s colonial frontier. “The mere fact that a section of society may disapprove of certain private conduct cannot, in and of itself, provide the state with the constitutional justification to criminalise it,” the judgment read. The judgment also rejected arguments advanced by prosecutors that the legislation, although one of many symbols of a bygone and otherwise regressive era, was gender-neutral in wording and therefore non-discriminatory in effect. Justice Celestin-Farrow observed that, in practice, despite the handful of occasions where Section 17 had been applied, it had been overwhelmingly against men in same-sex relationships. This, when placed alongside her rejection of the “public morality argument”, wherein she held that the state had not produced any evidence to suggest that the private act captured by Section 17 produced measurable harm to any identifiable person or to public order, ultimately led the court to conclude that the provision contradicted the guaranteed liberties established under the constitution.
Since Thursday, the judgment has drummed up significant debate within Vorona, drawing out numerous comments from varying groups offering their reaction to the verdict and its implications. The Voronan Interfaith Council, which is a largely informal gathering of the various religious organisations within Vorona, from the Aurorian Patriarchal Church to Geraja pundits, issued a statement within hours of the ruling, expressing what it described as “grave concern” at the court’s finding and calling on Parliament to restore the provision. The Council’s statement noted that while it respected the independence of the judiciary, it believed that questions related to LGBTQ+ affairs in Vorona ought to be made by the nation’s Parliament, given the “supremacy of democratic will over judicial determination.” Moderator-General the Rev. Ezekiel Hutchinson told reporters that the grouping would be consulting its legal advisors on whether it had any standing to intervene in the appeal as an interested party. Within the LGBTQ+ community, the response was one of relief tempered by what several advocates and activists described as the awareness that Thursday’s ruling was the beginning of a potentially long and arduous uphill battle. Marcus Haynes, a Senior Researcher at the Marigny Institute, Vorona’s leading LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation, stated that since the ruling, there had been a ‘shift’ within the community, with many being more hopeful for the future, especially given the fact that the ruling triggered similar challenges to other parts of the Sexual Offences Act and other laws at large. The response from the general public has been relatively mixed, with some expressing emotions from indifference to outright disgust in the judgment. “One setta bulla’ man in d’place dawg. Dis is ah God-fearing country. D’bible say a man mustn’t couple wit’ another man,” one man, who refused to give his name, said. “Plenty ah people rell uncomfortable wit where dis place going, but dey fraid to talk now cause soon as yuh say anyting, is a setta muddacunt label. Fire bun dat!” Beverly Ragoonanan, an accounting clerk within the Department of the Treasury and Finance, said that she felt no animosity towards the LGBTQ+ community. “Mi nuh really have no hate inna mi heart fi nobody. Dat just nuh deh inna mi nature. Mi try not fi judge people because at di end of di day, a who mi fi pass judgement pon anybody? Thursday night, mi son, him twenty now, him sit mi down and tell mi seh him gay. An’ honestly, mi tink mi have whole heap fi learn still. Mi grow up one way, hearing certain tings all mi life, but dat still a mi son. Nothing cyah change dat.”
Despite the judgment, both Attorney-General Hayden Ross and Secretary for Democratic Institutions Christopher Richardson confirmed that the CoG intended to advance an appeal to the Constitutional Court at the earliest convenience. At an impromptu press conference held on the staircase of the Hall of Justice in Port Bradford, Secretary Richardson clarified that the government was not appealing the judgment to restore the conviction or to defend Section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act, but was instead interested in the certainty of a Constitutional Court decision. “An appellate court judgement, however well-reasoned, is not binding to every court in Vorona. Only the Constitutional Court can close this question permanently. Our position [the government’s position] is not that Justice Celestin-Farrow was wrong; it is quite the opposite. Our position is that the Constitutional Court must say the same thing, so that there is no ambiguity remaining anywhere in the system,” Secretary Richardson explained. The announcement was nonetheless met with immediate scepticism from advocates and members of Alleyne’s legal team, who suggested that the government’s intention to appeal the judgment amounted to a clear effort to prolong proceedings while avoiding direct political responsibility for the decriminalisation issue. Speaking via telephone, Nadia St. Clair stated that although the VCLU welcomed the government’s apparent acceptance of the judgment’s reasoning, it was nonetheless cautious about the practical consequences of an appeal. “I’m always concerned whenever the government says it agrees with a judgment while simultaneously seeking to challenge it,” St. Clair remarked. “For Mr Alleyne, this case has already consumed nearly two years of his life; time I don’t think he will be able to get back.” Emmanuel Baptiste offered a more pointed response, suggesting that the appeal risked appearing “politically convenient”, especially in the eyes of those who may not have been as fortunate as Mr Alleyne to receive such robust legal representation. “If the government truly accept that Section 17 is unconstitutional, then one must ask why it cannot simply decline to enforce the provision and repeal the legislation,” he said. “There are many people who will inevitably view this as an attempt at stretching out the process while protecting politicians from the fallout associated with ‘killing’ this law.”
![[Image: xrcE4Me.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xrcE4Me.png)
backdated: September 5670