Mr Vincent Collister

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 Vincent Collister

Teacher Reference Number: 1749079

Teacher's date of birth: 20 November 1981

Location teacher worked: Northumberland, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 June 2025 to 19 June 2025

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 Vincent Collister formerly employed in Northumberland, North 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 Vincent Collister: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Vincent Collister Teacher ref number: 1749079 Teacher date of birth: 20 November 1981 TRA reference: 22680 Date of determination: 19 June 2025 Former employer: Ovingham Middle School, Ovingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 to 19 June 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Collister. The panel members were Dr Louise Wallace (lay panellist – in the chair), Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist) and Mr Nick Watkiss (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Howard Tobias of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Collister was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 12 March 2025. It was alleged that Mr Collister was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while employed as a teacher at Ovingham Middle School (“the School”): 1. On or about 3 June 2023, he: a. behaved inappropriately towards Person A in that he: i. stroked Person A’s beard; ii. said to Person A words to the effect of “that makes you hard doesn’t it”; iii. grabbed and/or touched Person A’s crotch. b. touched Person B’s breast and/or nipple bar; 2. His conduct at particular 1a and/or 1b was sexually motivated. Mr Collister made no admission of fact. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised person list and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 29 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 30 to 171 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 172 to 188 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 189 Service bundle of 26 pages Separate anonymised witness list of one page The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundles, in advance of the hearing. 5 In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Person A, [REDACTED] Person B, [REDACTED] Witness C, [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Collister had been employed at the School from September 2022 as a classroom teacher, year six form tutor, and Geography Curriculum lead. A staff night out took place in June 2023, following which the allegations of Mr Collister’s inappropriate behaviour were raised by Person A and Person B to the headteacher of the School. Mr Collister was suspended, and an investigation was carried out, following which a disciplinary hearing took place. A referral was made to the TRA on 24 October 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as a teacher at Ovingham Middle School (“the School”): 1. On or about 3 June 2023, you: a. behaved inappropriately towards Person A in that you: i. stroked Person A’s beard; 6 Mr Collister made no admission of fact in relation to this allegation. The panel noted that Mr Collister had admitted to having done this during the School’s investigation report and that he was extremely sorry if touching Person A’s beard had caused offence. The panel also noted that there was hearsay evidence in the bundle which corroborated that Mr Collister had stroked Person A’s beard. However, the panel considered the appropriate amount of weight to attach to this evidence and the fact that this hearsay evidence was unable to be tested by way of live witness testimony. The panel heard oral evidence from Witness C, who conducted investigation interviews at the time with the relevant parties. In relation to allegation 1(a)(i), she stated that “Mr Collister confirmed that he remembered touching Person A’s beard but that it was in a jokey way and that he and Person A had a jokey relationship. This was later refuted by Person A.” The panel heard oral evidence from Person A, who recalled the incidents above with the following comments: “Mr Collister placed his hand under my beard and pulled down, not tightly but like a stroke.” In his oral evidence, Person A recalled in detail that Mr Collister had reached across Person B with his left hand and stroked his beard. He recalled having frowned at him and “pulled his head back” because he was “not fond of anyone touching [his] beard”. The panel found Person A to be a credible witness in his detailed recollection of the incident, in particular Person A was able to visibly demonstrate to the panel how the incident regarding Mr Collister stroking his beard had taken place. Further, the panel found Person A to be very clear and coherent in his oral evidence when describing the incident and to his reaction at the time of the incident. The panel found that Person A had been consistent in his evidence over time regarding the incident, from the evidence given to the investigator at the time of the School’s investigation, to the TRA and in live evidence at the hearing. The panel found that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Collister was more likely than not to have stroked Person A’s beard on 3 June 2023 and that, in doing so, he behaved inappropriately to Person A. The panel found allegation 1(a)(i) proven. 7 ii. said to Person A words to the effect of “that makes you hard doesn’t it”; Mr Collister made no admission of fact in relation to this allegation. The panel heard oral evidence from Witness C, who conducted the School investigation interviews at the time with the relevant parties. In relation to allegation 1(a)(ii), she asked Mr Collister if he had made this comment and Mr Collister said “no”. The panel noted from the School’s investigation report that no one else had witnessed this comment having been made, either because they were too far away, or because they were unable to recall the comment. The panel heard oral evidence from Person A, who recalled the incidents above with the following comments: “I frowned at him after he did it and he said something like ‘that makes you hard doesn’t it’.” The panel noted that Person A recalled responding to his comment by saying “no.” The panel also noted that Person A stated that he was “taken aback and shocked” by the comment and by the actions of Mr Collister. The panel found Person A to be a credible witness in his detailed recollection of the incident. In particular, Person A was able to describe the layout of where everyone was positioned at the time that the comment was made, and that many other people were further away from him and therefore may not have heard the comment. The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, the comment to Person A “that makes you hard doesn’t it” was more likely than not to have been made on 3 June 2023 by Mr Collister and that, in doing so, he had behaved inappropriately to Person A. The panel found allegation 1(a)(ii) proven. iii. grabbed and/or touched Person A’s crotch. Mr Collister made no admission of fact in relation to this allegation. The panel heard oral evidence from Witness C, who conducted investigation interviews as part of the School’s investigation with the relevant parties. She stated that “Mr Collister confirmed he did not recall grabbing Person A’s crotch.” The panel heard oral evidence from Person A, who recalled the incidents above and made the following comment: Mr Collister then reached over Person B again, and with his right hand cupped my crotch.” 8 In his oral evidence, Person A could not recall if Mr Collister said anything when he “cupped [his] crotch” but that Mr Collister had seemed to think it would be a “funny thing to do”. Person A recalled being shocked especially that he had done this in front of everyone present and that this was “not what you would expect from a work colleague”. Person A was able to recall having immediately got up and gone to the toilet at which point he became more annoyed by what had happened and repeatedly stated that he was “shocked” by the incident. The panel noted that Person A had said that no-one else at work had ever touched his beard and that this was “not a normal thing for someone to do” and that his relationship with Mr Collister was no different from his relationship with any other colleague. Person A could not recall ever having touched Mr Collister’s beard or to having ever been “tactile” with Mr Collister. The panel found Person A to be a credible witness in his detailed recollection of the incident, in particular Person A commented that Mr Collister cupping his crotch was only for a second or two and that there was “no squeezing”. The panel noted Person A’s oral evidence was that his understanding of the rationale for Mr Collister cupping his crotch was t