Court of appeal quashes eight-year sentence human trafficking judgement

The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed an eight-year sentence in a case involving alleged human trafficking and exploitation.

Omer Khalafallah M Khalafallah was convicted by the Court of Magistrates for employing threats, abuse of authority, and deception to compel the victim into forced labour between 1 and 14 July 2018. The case was triggered after a report to the Philippine Consulate, which led to police intervention in July 2018.

He was also found guilty of document-related fraud and violations of Maltese employment law, whereby the court ordered him to pay expert witness costs of €572.31 and €4,849.36 in unpaid wages to the victim.

The appeal, filed in October 2025, argued that Khalafallah’s statements to police were inadmissible. His defence counsel claimed he was not properly informed of his right to have legal representation present during questioning and had limited comprehension of Maltese at the time. The First Court dismissed these claims, holding that he had received adequate legal advice.

A key issue which was addressed before the higher court concerned whether the employee was genuinely subjected to intimidation. The First Court accepted the victim’s testimony that a second employment contract contained a clause requiring her to pay a €20,000 penalty if she stopped working for Khalafallah. However, this alleged contract was never produced as evidence. 

The appellant argued that the prosecution presented no proof of such a clause, meaning the court accepted an unproven fact, which significantly weakens the case of intimidation that underpinned the trafficking conviction.

Several witnesses, including representatives from Identita and police officers, testified on matters such as the victim’s pay, working conditions, and possession of her passport. She initially arrived in Malta from Jordan under a contract arranged by her agent and signed a second contract in Turkey upon meeting Khalafallah. 

She confirmed that her passport was temporarily held by Khalafallah according to the contract terms, and that her wages were paid as agreed, contrary to claims of forced deprivation.

However, Khalafallah’s counsel argued that there was no evidence intending to exploit the victim for illegal activities, hence he did not exert any violence, coercion, deception, or even abuse of authority, legal elements constituting the offence of human trafficking. 

The victim’s testimony

The woman testified that she was paid €300 a month in cash instead of the €750 allegedly agreed upon, was not given regular days off and was restricted from leaving the apartment except to accompany the family’s children. She said her access to wi-fi was cut off at night, and had no personal mobile phone, and was pressured with a document stating she would owe €20,000 if she stopped working. 

She did not possess a copy of this document but said its existence made her fearful.

The victim confirmed signing two contracts abroad before arriving in Malta and acknowledged she had travelled voluntarily to work as a nanny. However, she maintained that once in Malta she had little freedom and felt intimidated when she raised concerns about her salary.

Officials from the Philippine Consulate testified that they received complaints that the woman was being underpaid and prevented from going out. Police later confirmed that her passport had initially been held by the employer and that her working conditions did not reflect the terms outlined in her contract.

Nonetheless, Khalafallah denied the allegations, stating that he and his wife employed the woman to assist with their three young children while his wife was pregnant. He insisted she worked limited hours, was not required to work Sundays and was never threatened with financial penalties. He also denied unlawfully withholding her passport, saying it was needed for visa processing.

His wife testified that the domestic worker had Sundays off and was generally free in the evenings.

In his appeal, Khalafallah’s counsel challenged the findings on intimidation, alleged fraudulent contract terms, seizure of documents and breaches of labour law, and argued that the sentence was excessive, particularly the compensatory obligations imposed.

The court’s decision

On Thursday, the Court of Criminal Appeal accepted Khalafallah’s defence and completely overturned the Court of Magistrate’s judgement on the basis that the appellant did not exert any of the legal elements which need to be satisfied for the offence of human trafficking to subsist. 

Khalafallah was acquitted from all charges imposed on him by the First Court. 

Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera delivered the judgement.

Defence lawyers Edward Gatt and Veronique Dalli represented the appellant.