Back Trinidad and Tobago

    Status regarding Budapest Convention

Status regarding Budapest Convention

Status : Invited to accede See legal profile

Cybercrime policies/strategies

The National Cyber Security Strategy (“Strategy”) was developed and prepared in 2012, by the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Cyber Security. This Strategy seeks to guide all operations and initiatives related to cyber security in Trinidad and Tobago. During the process of developing the Strategy, the critical need for an overarching governance framework and appropriate cybercrime legislation was recognised, and as such, the Strategy has provided the necessary foundation and impetus for the updating of national cybercrime legislative framework.

Specialised institutions

  • Cyber Crime Unit, Trinidad and Tobago Police Service
  • Trinidad and Tobago Cyber Security Incident Response Team, Ministry of National Security
  • Strategic Services Agency, Ministry of National Security

Jurisprudence/case law


1) Thomas, Davlin v Siewah, Naresh H.C.1531/2020. CV.2020-01531 (29 July 2020)

  • Facts: On 24 June 2020 the Claimant instituted a claim against the Defendant seeking damages included aggravated and exemplary damages for libel published via Facebook posts from 25 March 2020 to 10 June 2020; special damages; and damages for the republication of the Facebook posts by Third Parties and by the Defendant posting onto the Facebook Pages “TrinbagoLivesMatter” and “THE VOICE OF THE TnT 99%”.
  • Final decision: The Defendant was ordered from further publishing any statement defamatory as complained by the Claimant. The case was to be resolved by agreement, if not, the Court would impose a fine.

2) Alfred Pierre v Francis Morean H.C. 2405/2018 CV. 2018-02405 (21 October 2019)

  • Facts: The claimant is an attorney at law. The defendant is a blogger who maintains a public Facebook page under the name “Francis Morean”. In April 26, 2018, the defendant used his Facebook page to perform acts of defamation against the claimant. The defamation complained about included postings and live-streamed videos that viciously attacked the character of the claimant as well as threatened his life. On January 15, 2019, the Claimant obtained judgment against the defendant. The Court assessed on July 17, 2019 the lack of compliance by the Defendant based on evidence of further defamation (through Facebook live-streams and posts).
  • Final decision: The case was resolved with the imposition of a fine.

3) Southern Medical Clinic Limited and Rupert Indar Snr v Cherry Ann Rajkumar CA. CIV. S.62/2019 (31 July 2019)

  • Facts: The claimant is the owner of an hospital, where the defendant was administered treatment. Following the treatment, the defendant published material in relation to the claimant including on social media via Facebook, which the claimant contend is defamatory of him. The claimant sought to restrain further publication of the alleged defamatory material. The defendant asserts the right to journalistic publication. The trial judge refused to grant an injunction to restrain those and further publications.
  • Final decision: The case was resolved by granting an injunction restraining the respondent from further publishing similar words defamatory of the claimant and granting that the defendant remove and/or delete any defamatory statement linked to the case within 24 hours.

4) Lasana Liburd v Gordon Pierre H.C. 2398/2016 CV. 2016-02398 (7 May 2019)

  • Facts: Both sport journalists, the claimant is alleging injury to its reputation, character and business through libellous statements on Facebook and other social media platforms. A defamation claim was filed. 
  • Final decision: The case was resolved with the imposition of a fine.

5) Andrew Gabriel v Phillip Alexander H.C. 507/2017 CV. 2017-00507 (1 March 2019)

  • Facts: The defendant made alleged defamatory statement (including alleged corruption) about the claimant on a radio program that was broadcasted live on the defendant’s Facebook page.
  • Final decision: The case was resolved with the imposition of a fine.

6) Wayne Sturge v The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (C.A CIV. P.047/2017, 2 April 2019)

  • Facts: The appellant, a lawyer, published Facebook posts to express his concerns after cross-examining a witness from a murder trial. Those Facebook posts generated commentary by third parties, some of which the appellant responded to. The judge contemplated proceeding for contempt of court. The core issue dealt with this appeal is whether the proper procedure was followed or not.
  • Final decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence as well as the order made by the judge are set aside. As for the retrial, the Facebook postings were judged as serious and warranting a referral to the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago.

7) Hiedi Joseph v Ama Charles H.C. 2996/2016 CV. 2016-02996 (1 June 2018)

  • Facts: This trial concerns statements made by the Defendant about the Claimant on Facebook. The Claimant is seeking compensation for damage to her reputation allegedly caused by the publication of certain words on the Trinidad and Tobago Prison Service (“the TTPS”) Facebook page by the Defendant. The Defendant admits to publishing the words on her personal Facebook page, but she denies that she caused the publication on the TTPS Facebook page.  The Defendant also denies that the words have a defamatory meaning.
  • Final decision: The case was resolved with the payment of damages.

8) Leah Appalonia George v Richard Allen, Guardian General Insurance Limited, TLM Company Limited and New India Assurance Company T&T Limited H.C. 2244/2007 CV. 2007-02244 (13 April 2018) 

  • Facts: The Defendants, insurance companies, want to admit photographs published on Facebook by the Claimant into evidence of fraud. The issues in contention are whether Facebook photographs referred in or attached to the notices filed by the Defendants are admissible, and whether Defendants have the right to cross-examine the Claimant’s witnesses. 
  • Final decision: The defendants are granted permission to admit into evidence the photographs and cross-examine the claimant’s remaining witnesses.

9) DRA, SA, Child A and Child B v Jenelle Burke H.C. 2974/2016 CV. 2016-02974 (5 February 2018)

  • Facts: The cause of action is libel as a result of certain statements (incestuous actions, infidelity, rape) that the Defendant allegedly posted on social media about the Claimants. The Defendant denied that she had any relation to the posts, even though admitting the profile under which they were published belongs to the Defendant. The issues raised in this case relate to whether the impugned words were defamatory, whether the words referred to the Claimants, whether the words were published by the Defendant, whether they were communicated to persons other than the Claimants.
  • Final decision: The posts were considered as plausibly able to adversely affect a person’s character and reputation, the Court was disinclined to accept and rejected her contention by way of the Defence filed, that she was not responsible for the said postings. The Court established that the Defendant published words which were defamatory and the Claimants claim in libel hereby succeeds. The case was settled with the payment of damages and costs.

10) Therese Ho v Lendl Simmons H.C. 1949/2014 CV. 2014-01949 (26 October 2015)

  • Facts: The Claimant and Defendant were engaged in a relationship. Several photographs were taken of the Claimant and Defender during sexual intercourse, explicitly depicting the Claimant in said acts. After the end of the relationship, the Defender showed the photograph to third parties to shame her.
  • Final decision: The case was settled with the payment of damages and costs.


Sources and links

Tools on Cybercrime & Electronic Evidence Empowering You!

These profiles do not necessarily reflect official positions of the States covered or of the Council of Europe. 


  Are you aware of the latest legislative or policy developments on cybercrime and electronic evidence?

  Share this information with us helping to keep this platform up to date.

Useful links