A court has ruled that a man who was previously found guilty of human trafficking charges and lived in Malta illegally for 19 years had his rights breached when an immigration officer issued a removal order against him.

The man, an Algerian national, had been living in Malta since October 1997 and married a Maltese woman in 2001, though that marriage was declared null in December 2005. During the years of marriage, the man enjoyed exempt status.

He later had a child with a woman who holds Maltese citizenship, though the child was not registered as his daughter due to the woman being married to someone else. The pair later married in an Islamic ceremony in 2012.

In 2016, the man was found guilty of human trafficking charges and residing in Malta illegally, with the Court of Criminal Appeal fining him €5,000 and revoking a 30-month effective imprisonment sentence in favour of a two-year jail term suspended for four years.

The man was issued with a removal order in March 2018 and banned from entering the country for five years.

He appealed the order before the Immigration Appeals Board – which was later rejected – and instituted filiation proceedings. The family section of the Civil Court upheld the request in February 2021.

The man appealed the rejection, but that request was thrown out by the Court of Appeal in its inferior jurisdiction.

He then filed proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction against the Principal Immigration Officer and the State Advocate, claiming the removal order would breach his fundamental rights to respect for family and a private life.

The court was asked to revoke the removal order and assert his right to remain in Malta with his wife and daughter, with the man also seeking compensation for damages.

Family life

In its judgement, the court referenced local court cases and those at the European Court of Human Rights.

The court observed that while the man had lived in Malta illegally for 19 years, he had resided in the country for 27 years in total and had lived with his current partner since 2008.

The man, testifying about his relationship with his stepson, noted that the young man called him “dad” despite not being biologically related. Taking the stand, his stepson said he “always took good care of me as though I were his biological son”, adding he did not have a good relationship with his biological father.

The partner of the man told the court that although their daughter could not legally be registered under the plaintiff’s name, he always financially supported her and fulfilled the role of her paternal father.

A doctor, stating that the couple had been her clients for 10 years, declared the plaintiff was the "main breadwinner, ideal husband and father in this family unit”, while highlighting that the man took care of his wife who suffers from chronic health conditions.

While the daughter, a minor, was not called to testify, the court held that the man had managed to demonstrate he had a family in Malta.

However, when examining photos of the man with his daughter that he had brought as evidence of their relationship, the court remarked that one image had been doctored, remarking, “it’s so badly done it’s naïve”, adding such behaviour was unacceptable and the man should have testified he longer had such photos in his possession after losing his phone.

The rest of the photos were accepted by the court, though it noted they did not necessarily serve as an indicator of family life.

'Not a threat to national security'

Examining his previous offence, the court said: “Since the Court of Criminal Appeal did not consider the man as a threat to national security and gave him time to rehabilitate himself for him and his family, this court does no see why it should stop him from continuing to live here with his family.”

Moving to establish whether the decision to remove the man from the country was justified and proportional, the court found the removal order was not proportional to his right to enjoy a family life.

The court held that the man had integrated into the country during his decades in Malta and that removing him would impact not only his rights but also those of his family members.

Considering the plaintiff’s case, the court took into account the situation in his country of origin, which it noted had suppressed fundamental rights since 2023. Foreigners entering the North African country were frequently and arbitrarily detained without due process, it noted.

The court said that should the man’s family choose to follow him in Algeria, their fundamental rights could not be assured, nor could their right to remain in the country.

Presided over by Madam Justice Miriam Hayman, the court ruled his right to a family life had been breached and declared that the removal order, Immigration Appeals Board judgement and its appeal breached the man’s rights.

It quashed the decision to expel him to Algeria and declared he had a right to remain in Malta.