Bishop of Gozo Anton Teuma has said that no canonical action will be taken against the priest who allegedly brokered a €7,000 payment that led a Nadur family to withdraw an allegation of rape against relatives of PN MP Chris Said in 2008, after concluding that two separate investigations found no grounds for disciplinary measures.

Although Bishop Teuma did not name the priest in his statement, he was referring to Fr Michael Said, who was identified in a March court judgment as having acted as an intermediary in the 2008 settlement.

In a video posted on Facebook, the bishop said the diocese had stayed silent when the story broke in March not to conceal what had happened, but because the case was old and delicate and needed to be verified before any public comment.

He said two investigations had since been carried out: one by the Gozo Safeguarding Commission, to establish whether the priest posed any risk given his work in a school, and a second, independent probe that he had personally requested, carried out by a board made up of a retired Maltese judge, a lawyer and a judge of the Archdiocese of Malta's ecclesiastical tribunal.

Bishop Teuma said he had personally examined the March court judgment, three affidavits filed by lawyers involved in the case at the time, the investigation reports, and testimony from the family, the alleged victim and the priest himself.

He concluded that the priest was never involved in, nor considered part of, the alleged abuse, and that his decades in the priesthood reflected full integrity in that regard.

However, he acknowledged that the circumstances showed the priest had influenced the family, contributing to the withdrawal of the case, and that his signature appeared among others on the settlement agreement.

The bishop said the priest himself now recognised the intervention had not been wise and had said he would act differently today, but that this influence did not amount to intentional coercion.

Bishop Teuma said the evidence, including the family's own testimony, showed it was the family who had first turned to the priest for help, given his existing pastoral relationship with them, rather than the priest being approached by relatives of the men accused.

He added that although the priest had signed the agreement alongside others, it was not he who had proposed it, drafted it through a lawyer, or negotiated the sum to be paid.

In the bishop's assessment, the priest had acted by seeking the family's welfare rather than to obstruct justice.

On that basis, Bishop Teuma said he agreed with the recommendations of both the Safeguarding Commission and the independent board that no canonical action was warranted, noting that at no stage had a court or other authority sought to proceed legally against the priest.

The bishop also cautioned against passing judgement on people without having the full facts, while stressing that abuse must always be strongly condemned and victims protected.

He said that whenever victims and their families are referred to publicly, even indirectly, they can feel exposed or re-traumatised, and that this might be happening again as he spoke.

The Bishop apologised, as recommended by both commissions, to any victims or families reliving their pain because of the case.

Bishop Teuma said the diocese would continue to invest in information and prevention efforts, adding that its safeguarding structures had consistently worked, and would keep working, towards eradicating abuse.

The case first drew public attention in March, when a court judgment revealed that Fr Said, a relative of the men accused, had acted as an intermediary between the Said family and the parents of a 14-year-old Nadur girl who had accused several men, including brothers of Chris Said, of rape.

According to testimony cited in the ruling, the payment was made a day after the family filed a police report, with the priest reportedly telling the parents the money would be better spent on their daughter's psychological support than on pursuing a court case.

The parents later said they regretted accepting the payment, and the case could not proceed after the alleged victim withdrew her complaint, which the law at the time required for prosecution.

The Gozo Diocese initially declined to comment, before saying in March that it was examining the judgment and taking professional advice.