‘Big Frank’, who ran a vice syndicate in London’s red light district in the 1960s and 1970s, lost a case he took to the European Court of Human Rights after being forced to submit to a paternity test against his will.

Frank Mifsud

Francesco Saverio Mifsud, who resided in Sliema, complained in mid-December 2015 that a Maltese law forcing him to provide a genetic sample in paternity proceedings contrary to his will violated his right to respect for private and family life. He died in Malta two years later, aged 91 and his Irish wife, Margaret, decided to continue with the proceedings.

The case dates back to December 2012 when a woman – named in the Maltese proceedings as Diana Abdilla, then 54, but who is not identified by the Strasbourg Court, which refers to her as ‘X’ – claimed that Mr Mifsud was her biological father and asked the Civil Court (Family Section) in Malta to order that this be reflected on her birth certificate.

The Public Registry director requested the court to order the parties submit themselves to genetic tests. On the same day the director filed his application, Mr Mifsud denied he was the father and claimed that Ms Abdilla’s mother had had various partners.

Ms Abdilla had also asked that both herself and Mr Mifsud should undergo genetic tests but he objected on various grounds including violation of his fundamental rights and also because any intervention could have negative medical implications given his advanced age.

The test was eventually held and the expert conducting it put the probability of paternity at 99.9998 per cent

However, the court disagreed with him and he appealed. 

The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the first judgment arguing that Mr Mifsud would not have suffered any humiliation in having to undergo a buccal swab (collecting DNA from cells on the inside of the cheek), which was not an invasive action, and any turbulence that could be caused to his private and family life did not outweigh Ms Abdilla’s interests.

The test was eventually held and the expert conducting it put the probability of paternity at 99.9998%. Mr Mifsud was, therefore, declared by the court to be Ms Abdilla’s biological father and this was to be reflected in her birth certificate.

How one UK newspaper reported Big Frank’s conviction.

The Strasbourg Court, which included Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, agreed that forcing somebody to submit to a DNA test and the actual test itself despite the person’s objections amounted to interference with that person’s private life. However, in this case, the interference pursued a “legitimate aim”, that is, the protection of Ms Abdilla’s rights and freedoms.

It agreed with the Constitutional Court that, respect for private life demanded that everybody should be able to establish details of one’s identity as an individual human being. Furthermore, entitlement to such information was important because of its formative implications for one’s personality, including obtaining the information required to uncover the truth on important aspects of one’s personal identity, like knowing who one’s parents were.

The Strasbourg-based Court described Mr Mifsud as being a British national. In fact, it notified the UK about the case but it did not intervene.

Fruit of extramarital affair

Diana Abdilla was the fruit of an extramarital affair Frank Mifsud had with a woman who used to work for him, Margaret Felice, according to court evidence both in Malta and in Strasbourg.

According to Ms Felice, she used to date Mr Mifsud in the late 1950s and at some point she got pregnant. She testified he wanted to interrupt the pregnancy and had seen a man who gave her an injection. She then miscarried.

Mr Mifsud had bought her a place in London where they used to meet since he was married. Ms Felice insisted she had always been faithful to him because she feared him, given he was a powerful man involved in criminal activities.

She conceived again from the relationship she had with Mr Mifsud and Ms Abdilla was born in January 1960. 

However, the affair had eventually deteriorated, to the extent he also wanted her to prostitute herself. 

Ms Felice said she finally plucked up courage, left him and returned to Malta with her daughter.

Ms Abdilla recounted that, even when still young, she had always been told that Mr Mifsud was her father. Whenshe turned 16, she decided to write to him but he never answered. 

Then, in 1978 she learned that Mr Mifsud would be visiting Malta and she went to meet him at the airport.

In her affidavit to the European Court of Human Rights, Ms Abdilla said he arrived with his family and noted a resemblance between herself and his daughter. However, she did not approach him though they did meet some time later in the presence of a lawyer.

According to her, Mr Mifsud greeted her warmly and, subsequently, met on several occasions. She said she also met his wife. Ms Abdilla said her father told her he would not inform his children about her not to disrupt their schooling and she agreed.

Mr Mifsud used to visit Malta regularly on his own and when she became pregnant he offered her one of his properties where to stay, thus living together on his visits to the island. 

Ms Abdilla had a daughter in 1979 and Mr Mifsud was her godparent.

She said Mr Mifsud suggested she should move to London but returned 16 months later because she missed Malta and Mr Mifsud had allowed her to reside in a property he owned in Sliema. In 1998, Ms Abdilla said she was evicted from the property and then their relationship deteriorated. 

During the eviction proceedings, he had promised her a sum of money to leave the premises peacefully, which she accepted but the money never arrived and the matter ended up in court, she said.