The decriminalisation of same-sex sexual relations in Jeffers was opposed by the national government on the grounds that the toleration of LGBTQI+ activity would open “the floodgates to practices that could alter and compromise survival of the culture and personality of the Federation“, which they argued was founded on “belief in Almighty God and the inherent dignity in each individual” (paragraph 70, Jeffers). According to Al Jazeera, certain efforts to maintain criminalisation were led by evangelical groups. The chairman of the Evangelical Association of Saint Kitts, comprised of about 30 Christian churches, had filed an affidavit in the Jeffers proceedings, arguing that “the moral and religious fibre of the community should influence any interpretation of the Constitution” (paragraph 112, Jeffers). The High Court rejected those claims, stating that “public morality is not synonymous with religious dogma or public opinion” (paragraph 114, Jeffers).

The opposition to decriminalisation raised by certain parties in the Jeffers proceedings is indicative of broader societal stigma and discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons. These religious, cultural and societal attitudes may remain persistent despite the judgment in Jeffers, especially in the absence of express legal safeguards against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.

While noting a statement from the Saint Kitts and Nevis government that no reports of sexual orientation-related violence or discrimination had been received, the 2023 US Country Report on Saint Kitts and Nevis highlights suggestions that negative societal pressures have led to underreporting. Observers in the 2022 US Country Report noted a case concerning the alleged assault of a transgender person by a police officer. The same Report also acknowledged concerns that the transgender community faced the most verbal and physical abuse, while noting that observers had raised reports of police harassment of transgender persons.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have previously urged Saint Kitts and Nevis to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTQI+ persons. As of 2025, Saint Kitts and Nevis is ranked 108 out of 197 countries on the Equaldex LGBT Equality Index, which ranks countries according to their LGBTQI+ friendliness. The country scores 33 out of 100 points, underscoring that decriminalisation is only a first step. Remaining issues considered for the evaluation include protections against discrimination, marriage equality and adoption rights, and recognition and protections for transgender people. The LGBT Equality Index combines a legal index and a public opinion index. While Saint Kitts and Nevis scores 52 points on the legal component, it scores only 15 on public opinion, suggesting that societal attitudes lag significantly behind the legal framework.

According to the Williams Institute’s Global Acceptance Index (“GAI“), Saint Kitts and Nevis was identified as one of the five countries worldwide (out of 175 countries) that showed the least change in acceptance of LGBTQI+ persons between 2010 and 2020, with a low GAI score of 3.71 (on a scale from 0 – 10) in 2020. Outright International observes that, despite decriminalisation, LGBTQI+ persons in Saint Kitts and Nevis continue to experience discriminatory treatment. This is reflected in the UK Government’s foreign travel advice for Saint Kitts and Nevis, which notes that “[a]ttitudes towards the LGBT+ community are mostly conservative in the Caribbean. Showing affection in public (for example, holding hands or kissing) is uncommon for opposite or same-sex couples and may receive unwanted and negative attention“.

A 2018 report from Human Rights Watch has detailed traumatic experiences affecting LGBTQI+ persons in the Eastern Caribbean arising from discriminatory societal attitudes. The report highlighted the circumstances of a number of individuals in Saint Kitts and Nevis, who recounted the serious impacts of bullying, harassment and stigmatisation on their physical and mental health. For example, it describes one instance of an 18-year-old gay man being verbally harassed and having bottles thrown at him while walking down the street.

​​As described above, the judgment in Jeffers represented a landmark ruling in Saint Kitts and Nevis. The High Court issued a declaration confirming the unconstitutionality of sections 56 and 57 of the OAPA insofar as they criminalised consensual sexual activity between men in private. These provisions, introduced during the colonial period, imposed a maximum sentence of up to ten years’ imprisonment, with or without hard labour. 

The High Court reached its decision based on the fundamental constitutional rights to personal privacy and freedom of expression. The judgment also discussed the right to liberty under section 3(a) of the Constitution, confirming that the right can be engaged in situations beyond formal arrest and detention. However, the High Court held that section 3(a) of the Constitution did not “encompass or support the expansive definition of the right to include the right to sexual autonomy to choose a sexual or intimate partner and to engage in consensual sexual intercourse” according to one’s choice (para 55). The High Court went on to reason that there was “no need to attempt to force-fit sexual autonomy within the boundaries of the right to liberty where it may be commodiously accommodated within the ambit of other constitutional provisions” (para 55). 

Limited commentary is available regarding subsequent jurisprudence. However, cases prior to Jeffers and which concern LGBTQI+ asylum-seekers from Saint Kitts and Nevis have been decided in other jurisdictions.

UNITED KINGDOM

In MRH v Secretary of State for the Home Department PA/13635/2016 (UK Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber, 31 October 2017), the appellant was a Saint Kitts and Nevis citizen. He arrived in the UK on 22 May 2016 and claimed asylum on the basis of his sexual orientation and that he would be at risk of persecution on return.

The UK Secretary of State for the Home Department refused his claim. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Judge L Murray accepted that the appellant was gay and was subject to violence in 2010, but did not accept that the attack was homophobic in motivation. Judge Murray found that: “the treatment he has suffered or would be likely to suffer on return as a gay man would not amount to persecution on the evidence before me“. She found “no evidence of state-sponsored persecution of LGBT individuals“.

On appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the appellant argued, among other things, that Judge Murray had incorrectly failed to address whether the appellant would be able to live as an openly gay man in Saint Kitts and Nevis on return and the associated risks.

The Upper Tribunal (Judge Grubb) dismissed the appeal, observing that the First-tier Tribunal had applied the correct legal approach, and that:

“Her conclusion was that such a gay man would not be exposed to a real risk of persecution or serious ill-treatment. If that finding is sustainable, it was wholly immaterial how the appellant would behave on return. Whether he would behave openly or ‘discreetly’, his claim could not succeed.“

The Upper Tribunal acknowledged that the evidence established “discrimination and homophobic antagonism” towards LGBTQI+ persons in Saint Kitts and Nevis, but held that the high threshold of persecution had not been met:

“The word “persecution” has been judicially recognised as being a “strong word” (see Sepet v SSHD [2003] UKHL 15 at [7] per Lord Bingham). Discrimination, in itself, even if it were contrary to the standards of human rights in the UK, would not amount to persecution or serious harm (the latter relevant to establish humanitarian protection or an Art 3 claim). The level of violation, prospective or apprehended, must attain a “substantial level of seriousness” (see MI (Pakistan) and Another v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 826 at [63]).”

CANADA

It was reported in 2016 that a gay man from Saint Kitts and Nevis, Rolston Ryan, was granted refugee protection in Canada following three years of legal proceedings. Mr Ryan reportedly experienced serious violence in Saint Kitts and Nevis on the basis of his sexual orientation. The media report quotes from a decision of the Canadian Refugee Appeal Division, stating: “[t]he state criminalizes homosexual activity… [t]his is reflective of a state that is homophobic“.