Two convicted human traffickers have had their 12-year prison term annulled because a decision made by the court that sentenced them impinged on their right to a fair hearing.

A judge hearing the Hungarian couple’s appeal ruled that the magistrate who heard the case should have allowed the defence to cross-examine witnesses – two women who were allegedly brought to Malta for prostitution purposes.

The decision not to, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera ruled, was detrimental to the accused and verged on a breach of their right to a fair hearing.

She sent the proceedings back to the first court to hear the case again from the cross-examination stage.

That court was presided over by Magistrate Joe Mifsud, in the case against Robert Attila Majlat, 41, and Attilane Majlat, 36.

He sentenced both of them to 12 years in prison for trafficking the two women, the maximum allowable term that can be given by the magistrates’ court.

One of the victims, who cannot be named by court order, said she had been “bought” by Robert Majlat from her old pimp when she was 19 years old.

She said she had worked as a prostitute in various countries, including Hungary, the UK, The Netherlands and Malta, and always passed on everything she earned to Majlat who, in turn, provided for her daily needs.

Robert Majlat’s wife, she said, was responsible for appointments with clients and used to determine the fees to be paid for her services.

The witness said there were originally three of them.

They first came to Malta in August 2016 but the landlord realised that the apartment was being used for prostitution so he terminated the lease and they had to flee the island.

They returned in September 2017.

She said she took 15 clients a day. She also alleged she was forced to have sex with Majlat but the accused was cleared of the rape charge as it had not been proven in court.

She told the court that she wanted to stop working as a prostitute but was worried about her eight-month old daughter – she was not sure if she would have enough money to feed her and buy her whatever she needed.

Her baby stayed with the couple while she was with clients.

A second victim said she had been brought to Malta for prostitution and used to live in St Paul’s Bay with the couple.

The woman used a different apartment to service clients. She charged €100 an hour for her services.

Lawyers Noel Bianco and Jason Grima took on representation of the accused at the appeal stage and complained about Magistrate Mifsud’s decree turning down the request by the pervious defence lawyers to cross-examine the two victims.

The court quoted a United Nations convention which dealt with the re-victimisation of victims of trafficking, especially women and children, who must be protected against the repetition of interviews, interrogations or testimonies during proceedings.

However, Madam Justice Scerri Herrera ruled that this could only be done without prejudice to the defence team’s right to cross-examine the main witnesses in a case.

She also noted that according to the information in the case file, the proceedings were held in Maltese. While the interpreter from Maltese to English was present, the interpreter to Hungarian was not always in court, and at least one of the accused did not have a good command of English.

However, the court said it could not accept the complaint about the lack of an interpreter at this stage of the proceedings because it did not appear that the original defence lawyers had objected.

The court annulled the magistrate’s decision to disallow the cross examination of the victims.

She sent the proceedings back to the magistrates’ court, which is to hear the case again from the cross-examination stage and rule afresh.