The decision decriminalised consensual same-sex intercourse for the first time in 127 years, and established that the constitutional right to non-discrimination on grounds of sex extended to sexual orientation.

[note 1] Buggery is thought to have been first criminalised in colonial Belize by the Criminal Code Act 1888, brought into force on 15 December 1888, which provided that – Whoever is convicted of unnatural carnal knowledge of any person, with force or without the consent of such person, shall be liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life, and in the discretion of the Court to flogging.

[5][4] The claimants sought, principally, a finding declaring section 53 of the Criminal Code Act null and void and of no effect as regards private carnal intercourse between consenting persons, in so far as it contravened constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, and equal protection under the law, as enshrined in sections 3, 6, and 14 of the Constitution Act.

Further, the general prejudice and abusive conduct of the public which the law engenders and encourages affects my right to express my human sexuality and to establish and nurture relationships with consenting male partners without outside interference.

[10]The claimant, and their interested parties and expert witnesses, further brought to bear evidence on the role the challenged statute played in the stigma, violence, and negative health outcomes experienced by LGBT nationals.

[12][13] The Court, however, following Dudgeon v UK and Tan Eng Hong v AG, rejected this argument, noting the claimant 'perpetually [ran] the risk of being prosecuted.

[43] The little attention paid, in the written decision, to the relationship between freedom of expression and the buggery statute has been called 'unfortunate,' given that this might 'undermine its [the judgment's] usefulness in other litigation around the Caribbean.

Human Dignity Trust 'received harsh criticism in Belize because the article [announcing their involvement as an interested party in 2011] did not make it clear that the case had already been initiated by Belizean lawyers with a legal strategy developed by a local organisation [UNIBAM].

'[45] Belize Action, a religious group who opposed the decriminalisation of same-sex intercourse, denounced the involvement of overseas persons and organisations in favour of the claimant, but were themselves criticised for receiving foreign aid.

For instance, the editor-in-chief of the Amandala, Russell Vellos, stated –Homosexuals are predators of young and teenaged boys [...] Woe unto us, Belize, if homosexuals are successful in our court.

[51][52] Notably, Government did not appeal the decriminalisation of same-sex intimacy, findings regarding sections 3, 6, and 14, nor the Court's exercise of judicial review.

[39] Orozco v AG is thought to have been the first challenge to Belize's sodomy statute since the latter's introduction in 1888, and the first instance of the judicial review of such law in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

[57][58][59][note 16] The judgment made Belize the second Commonwealth Caribbean country to decriminalise consensual same-sex intercourse, after The Bahamas.