Mr George Vandenberg

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr George Vandenberg

Teacher reference number: 1674054

Teacher's date of birth: 3 May 1995

Location teacher worked: Surrey, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 to 5 October 2023, 5 January 2024 and 10 September 2024

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr George Vandenberg, formerly employed in Surrey, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr George Vandenberg: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 22 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr George Vandenberg Teacher ref number: 16/74054 Teacher date of birth: 03 May 1995 TRA reference: 20517 Date of determination: 10 September 2024 Former employer: St Paul's Catholic College, Sunbury-on-Thames, Surrey (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 October 2023 to 5 October 2023 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT and then reconvened virtually on 5 January 2024 and 10 September 2024 to consider the case of Mr George Vandenberg. The panel members were Mrs Christine McLintock, teacher panellist – in the chair, Ms Amanda Godfrey, teacher panellist, and Mr Dara Islam, lay panellist. The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Eleanor Brown of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson Solicitors. Mr George Vandenberg was present and was represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan, Counsel of Cornwall Street Barristers. The hearing took place in public (save for parts which were heard in private) and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 17 July 2023. It was alleged that Mr George Vandenberg was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Mr Vandenberg engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards one or more colleagues on or around 24 September 2021, including: a. Colleague A, in that he: i. Touched and / or rubbed Colleague A’s crotch; ii. Told Colleague A on one or more occasions “I want to fuck you” or used words to that effect; iii. Touched Colleague A’s chest; iv. Touched Colleague A’s leg; v. Squeezed Colleague A’s knee; vi. Placed Colleague A’s hand on his groin and / or penis: b. By referring to one or more colleagues as “slags” and / or “cunt”; 2. Mr Vandenberg engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards one or more colleagues in or around 2018 at a public house, including: b. Colleague C, in that he touched and / or tried to touch Colleague C’s leg; 3. Mr Vandenberg’s conduct as may be found proven at; a. 1a and / or 2 above included unwanted physical and / or sexual contact with one or more of his colleagues; b. 1a and / or 2 above included sexual harassment of one or more of his colleagues; 4. 1a and / or 2 above included conduct that was of a sexual nature and / or was sexually motivated. The allegations are denied by Mr Vandenberg. Mr Vandenberg confirmed to the panel that he does not admit the allegations as he had no recollection of the events due to his alcohol consumption at the relevant time. Mr Vandenberg further denied he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and / or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications The panel considered two applications from Mr Vandenberg’s legal representative, the first was in relation to the admissibility of late evidence. Admissibility of late evidence Mr Vandenberg applied to admit a further bundle of 52 pages of documents which included a further witness statement from Mr Vandenberg, additional character references, Mr Vandenberg’s lesson observations and details of a professional skills course attended. The panel noted that those documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.36 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”), and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures which was at their discretion. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer regarding the delay in presenting the documents to the panel. Those representations were that Mr Vandenberg’s instructing firm of solicitors had opted to send all documentation in one tranche rather than on a piecemeal basis when each document became ready causing significant delay. The panel took into account the concerns raised by the presenting officer as to the lateness of the submission of the additional documentation but also noted the presenting officer’s comments regarding the relevance of the documentation to the case and the fact that the TRA did not object to the inclusion of the additional documentation. The panel noted that under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. After hearing and considering representations from both parties, the panel was satisfied that the documents may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case as they provided useful information regarding the character of Mr Vandenberg and his teaching ability. The panel noted that there is a distinction to be drawn between the situation when a presenting officer seeks to rely upon hearsay evidence, and the current situation when it is the defence seeking to introduce hearsay evidence, without the witness being in attendance. The former invokes considerations relating to the teacher’s right to a fair hearing, whereas the latter does not, although there remains a question of the fairness between the parties. The panel had regard to whether it would be a sufficient safeguard for a hearsay warning to be given before the panel’s 6 determination on the facts. The panel were satisfied that any imbalance caused to the presenting officer in being unable to cross-examine the witnesses to Mr Vandenberg’s character could be addressed by the panel’s decision in due course as to what weight it should attach to the evidence, if such evidence is admitted. With regard to the overall question of fairness and given the presenting officer was not objecting to the inclusion of the late evidence on the basis it was relevant to the issues of Mr Vandenberg’s character and his teaching ability, the panel’s conclusion was that it was fair to admit the evidence. The panel noted that the documents should be paginated as follows: Section 6: Additional documents from Mr Vandenberg – pages 146 to 198. The provision of witness evidence via video link The panel considered a further application from Mr Vandenberg’s legal representative that two of his witnesses, Witness 1 – [REDACTED] and Witness 2 - [REDACTED] to provide their evidence remotely via video link due to their availability. [REDACTED] The panel considered that neither witness fell within the category of vulnerable witnesses which is defined in paragraphs 5.101 or 5.102 of the Procedures as being a person whose “quality of evidence is likely to be adversely affected at a hearing”. However, the panel noted that pursuant to paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures, the Panel may admit any evidence where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. Therefore, the panel considered it had a discretion as to whether to allow Witness 1 and Witness 2 to give evidence by video-link given the distance the witness would have to travel to Coventry, the costs entailed and the witness’ work commitments. The panel also noted that in allowing their evidence to be given by video link, it would ensure Mr Vandenberg was fully able to present his case. In exercising that discretion, the panel also took into account that there may be subtleties of tone or body language that might be lost via the medium of video link but considered that such matters could, in any event, be taken into account when assessing the weight it would attribute to the evidence. Finally, the panel also took into consideration that the presenting officer had not objected to the witnesses providing evidence via video link. Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private During the course of the hearing an application was made by the presenting officer for part of the hearing relating to the private life of a colleague present during the events of allegation 1 and who had provided written hearsay evidence to the panel to be heard in private. Having reviewed the context and content of the information which 7 related to a personal and sensitive experience of this colleague, the panel decided that the relevant parts of the hearing discussing this personal and sensitive experience relating to their private life should be heard in private. There was no contrary public interest in those matters being discussed in public. The panel further noted that the evidence to be heard in private would protect the interests of the hearsay witness. The evidence to be heard in private was very discrete and would not undermine the public's ability to otherwise understand the case. Mr Vandenberg’s representative did not have any objection to this decision. Consideration as to whether Colleague C could give evidence by virtual means from Gibraltar Although not raised as a preliminary issue, the panel was informed immediately before Colleague C giving evidence that they planned to do so by virtual means from Gibraltar. Before allowing the witness to provide evidence, the panel took into account the starting position set out in the Upper Tribunal decision in the case of Agbabiaka [2021]UKUT 286 (IAC), which determined the