A Slovak woman asked her landlady to look after her daughter for a few hours and then fled the island only to return three years later.

Magistrate Miriam Hayman gave the woman a one-year jail term suspended for two years after hearing how she left the girl in Malta "to protect her from discrimination in the Slovak Republic because of the colour of her skin" as the child was considered to be a gypsy.

The woman and her 37-year-old husband had been charged with abandoning the girl, when she was nine years old, on August 19, 2003.

The magistrate heard that the woman and her husband had asked their Maltese landlady to keep the girl for a few hours because they needed to go to Gozo. As the hours rolled by and the couple did not return for their child, the landlady called at the couple's apartment where she found that the cupboards were all empty except for a luggage containing the girl's clothes.

The landlady reported the matter to the police and, subsequently, the minor was taken to a home. A few days later the woman phoned the landlady to inform her she would pick up the child within six months. But this did not happen because the couple only returned in September 2006.

In her testimony, via video-conferencing facilities in September last year, the girl explained that she had not spoken to her parents for the past three years. She told the court that her (adoptive) mother had drinking problems and remembered times when she accompanied her mother to drink at a bar.

The magistrate also heard the testimony of the woman and her husband.

The woman said she had adopted the girl at the age of 10 months. Before meeting her current husband (the co-accused) she was married to another man whom she had divorced.

The woman recalled that she and her present husband ran away from Slovakia because of persecution by members of the mafia who wanted their property as she was quite well off. Another reason why they left Slovakia was the girl. The woman told the court that the girl faced problems because of her gypsy origin, to the extent that she was persecuted at school both by children and teachers.

She recounted that at first her husband hated the girl and, after they divorced, he threatened her that the girl would be sent again to an orphanage. The police then went to their house and took the girl away because of allegations that she was beaten. Instead of taking the girl to a doctor she was taken away through the help of a corrupt social worker.

The woman said she learnt that, at the orphanage, the girl was kept in dirty conditions. It was for this reason that she and her present husband decided to abduct her from the institution. So they sold their property, abducted the girl and escaped to Tunisia until they made their way to Malta. Here they tried to find a job, but to no avail.

She explained that they could not seek police help due to their having abducted the girl. When they failed to obtain a job in Malta they decided to protect the girl by leaving her in Malta and then obtaining asylum for her. The woman said she had explained this to the girl. So they left her with the landlady.

The woman said she spoke to the landlady and asked her to use the money already paid to her for the flat's lease for the girl's upbringing.

They went to Prague where, after spending almost a year there, she and her husband were imprisoned. They were then handed over to the Slovak police and were imprisoned for a further term.

Then, on September 17, 2006, the two were arrested at the airport when they came to Malta to be reunited with the girl. On arriving in Malta they were charged with abandoning the child.

After hearing the evidence, the magistrate cleared the husband of the charge after noting that he had no legal responsibilities towards the child. Although the man accepted the girl as his daughter, her birth certificate listed the first husband as the father.

The magistrate, however, found the woman guilty and noted: "Imagine then the sense of loss and abandonment inflicted on this child who, according to her mother, had already been through quite a lot of hardship in her very young life".

After taking into consideration the fact that the woman had been in preventive custody for a year, she handed down a one-year jail term suspended for two years. The court also ordered that the woman be stripped of her rights over the girl.

The names are not being published to protect the identity of the child.

Police Inspector Louise Calleja prosecuted.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.