Tom Beardsworth practises across Chambers’ core specialisms.
The principal part of Tom’s practice is criminal prosecution and defence. He is trusted to handle an increasingly serious caseload, including, as sole counsel, allegations of attempted rape, false imprisonment, perverting the course of justice, and offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Tom knows from experience the value of preparatory work. He gives early and detailed consideration to disclosure and unused material, yielding powerful points to deploy at trial. He is well-versed in making submissions on hearsay, bad character and adverse inferences that have proved influential or determinative on the outcome of trial.
He has represented a number of businesspeople, sports figures, and professionals in criminal, coronial, and disciplinary proceedings. He recently represented a Metropolitan Police sergeant accused of sexual misconduct and dishonesty, in which the Panel were persuaded to make a rare finding of ‘no case to answer’ before the sergeant had given evidence.
Tom is regularly instructed to advise on quasi-criminal issues, including civil applications to recover the proceeds of crime. He has been engaged by a government department for over a year to advise on a range of criminal and non-criminal law issues relating to the prosecution of fare evasion on the railways, led by King’s Counsel.
Before coming to the Bar, Tom worked for five years as a journalist at Bloomberg. He maintains a particular interest in the right to free expression. He recently represented a retired firefighter who, after his arrest for social-media posts criticising the Fire Service, successfully challenged police bail conditions that restricted him from, among other things, speaking publicly about his arrest. Separately, he acted for two of four anti-ULEZ protestors whose convictions for peacefully protesting in the neighbourhood of the Mayor of London’s home were quashed on appeal.
Tom accepts Direct Access instructions.
Tom is often instructed to prosecute in the fields of business crime and financial services. Among his recent cases are:
Tom also defends. He is instructed to represent a company said to have failed to discharge the section 3 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 duty to ‘persons other than their employees’ following the death of a labourer by electrocution. The company director is charged with a like offence and also with perverting the course of justice (due for trial together in 2028).
In the civil jurisdiction, Tom acts for both applicants and respondents in account and cash freezing, and in forfeiture applications pursuant to Part 5 of POCA.
Tom has experience working as part of a large team. He assisted in the review of unused material in a SFO prosecution. In another case, he drafted submissions on behalf of a brokerage involved in a dividend arbitrage scheme that addressed the FCA’s calculation of financial benefit.
Before coming to the Bar, Tom was a financial journalist for five years at Bloomberg. He covered capital markets, investment funds and controversies arising from regulatory and accounting failures. He understands how a financial-market scandal or crisis feels to people embroiled in it.
R v MB Ltd, AS & Ors, Isleworth Crown Court [ongoing]
Representing a building company said to have failed to discharge the section 3 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 duty to ‘persons other than their employees’ following the death of a labourer by electrocution. The company director is also charged through section 37 and is further charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Due for trial in 2028.
R v MC, Croydon Crown Court [2025]
Represented a longstanding family-owned sports bookmaker which, while not party to the criminal proceedings, was the subject of an application for a Restitution Order in sentencing the offender for fraud. The application was withdrawn before the hearing following detailed written submissions.
London Borough of Islington v ME, Snaresbrook Crown Court [2025]
Prosecuted an individual who had dishonestly obtained social housing in a case that resolved by guilty pleas shortly before trial. The defendant was ordered to pay compensation of £23,000.
Derbyshire Police v ES, Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court [2025]
Represented a student of good character, in civil freezing-order proceedings, who accrued a large sum of money through gambling.
HMRC v JM Ltd, Croydon Magistrates’ Court [2025]
Represented a longstanding family jewellery business that was said to have laundered money through the purchase and sale of high-end watches. Advised the business over the course of several months in the context of civil forfeiture proceedings, leading to a negotiated settlement with HMRC.
London Borough of Islington v Mailbox Group Ltd, Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Represented a local authority in successfully resisting an application under section 23 POCA to vary (i.e. substantially reduce) a £60,000 confiscation order.
R v Mailbox Group Ltd, Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Prosecuted a Mail Forwarding Business for customer due-diligence failures (contrary to section 75 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007) which had hampered a police investigation into the large-scale importation of controlled drugs. The company was fined £16,000. See more details here.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v SJ, Thames Magistrates’ Court [2023]
Represented the Commissioner in a successful civil application for forfeiture of £18,000 of cash in contested proceedings. The District Judge cited admissions made in the Respondent’s cross-examination as the critical evidence.
Tom has a growing civil and advisory practice. He has a particular interest in the exercise of investigative powers and the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime. He represents both applicants and respondents in asset freezing and forfeiture applications brought under Part 5 of POCA, both as sole counsel and led by King’s Counsel.
He has extensively advised the Department for Transport, led by King’s Counsel, in relation to procedural errors by several train operating companies in their prosecutions of fare evasion offences on the railways.
Tom has varied experience in a range of civil applications concerning criminal conduct, such as Stalking Protection Orders, Closure Orders, and Gang Injunctions. He has represented a prison operator in responding to an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court.
Derbyshire Police v ES, Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court [2025]
Representing a student of good character, in civil account freezing-order proceedings, who accrued a large sum of money through gambling.
HMRC v JM Ltd, Croydon Magistrates’ Court [2025]
Represented a 60-year-old family jewellery business that was said to have laundered money through the purchase and sale of high-end watches. Advised the business over the course of several months, leading to a negotiated settlement with HMRC.
X & Ors v Various Train Operating Companies [2024-ongoing]
Advised the Department for Transport in relation to procedural errors by several train operating companies in their prosecutions of fare evasion offences on the railways. Led by King’s Counsel.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v JL, Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Represented the Metropolitan Police in a difficult, contested and protracted application for an injunction to prevent gang-related violence. The Respondent was stabbed and seriously wounded while proceedings were ongoing.
MP v Sodexo [2023]
Represented a private prison operator in responding to an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court. The application had been made following a lawful but poorly-reasoned and drafted decision to remand the applicant in custody pending trial. The prison operator was successful in resisting the application and obtained an order for costs.
Tom regularly represents local authorities and respondents in consumer and trading standards matters. In the civil jurisdiction he also has experience applying for Closure Orders and Food Condemnation Orders.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v PA & FA, Thames Magistrates’ Court [2025]
Represented a family-owned grocery business that successfully resisted the council’s application for a Hygiene Prohibition Order pursuant to Regulation 7 of the Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations 2013.
Westminster City Council v RR Ltd, J & R Traders Ltd, Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Successful application on behalf of the council pursuant to the Food Safety Act to condemn (i.e. dispose of) various products being sold in ‘candy’ stores in the West End.
London Borough of Islington v Mailbox Group Ltd, Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Prosecuted a Mail Forwarding Business for customer due-diligence failures (contrary to section 75 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007) which had hampered a police investigation into the large-scale importation of controlled drugs. The company was fined £16,000. See more details here.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets v CKK, Thames Magistrates’ Court [2023]
Prosecuted a massage parlour subject to the Special Treatment license regime for breaches of its license. Cumulative financial penalty and costs of almost £8,000.
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency v B Ltd, Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2023]
Represented a company among the first to be prosecuted by the DVSA for selling imported e-bikes that were allegedly in breach of UK and EU regulations. An adverse result would have bankrupted the company by compelling a mandatory recall of the products in question. The company was acquitted following legal argument about the correct application of the regulations to the test-purchased e-bikes.
As sole counsel, Tom is trusted by instructing solicitors to handle an increasingly serious caseload.
Tom knows from experience the value of preparatory work before trial, particularly in relation to admissibility and disclosure. In one case Tom successfully challenged the admissibility of apparent confession evidence, resulting in discontinuance, and in another case pressed for disclosure the answer to which provided an innocent explanation for the presence of the defendant’s blood at the complainant’s address. He is well-versed in making submissions on hearsay, bad character, and adverse inferences that have proved influential or determinative on the outcome of trial.
Tom has experience working as part of a large, privately-funded defence team. In 2023, he assisted in the review of unused material in a SFO prosecution. In 2025, he was seconded to a leading law firm to assist with case preparation in one of the first prosecutions under the National Security Act 2023 for espionage, and ‘foreign interference’ offences, due for trial in 2026.
R v GL
Represented comedian and gender-critical activist Graham Linehan. The Metropolitan Police took no further action following his arrest on suspicion of Public Order Act offences relating to social media posts. Successfully challenged police bail conditions before District Judge Snow at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
R v MB Ltd, AS & Ors, Isleworth Crown Court [ongoing]
Representing a building company said to have failed to discharge the section 3 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 duty to ‘persons other than their employees’ following the death of a labourer by electrocution. The company director is also charged through section 37 and is further charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Due for trial in 2028.
R v CK, Norwich Crown Court [2025]
Represented a motorist charged with causing serious injury by careless driving. Following defence expert evidence and written submissions the Crown offered no evidence shortly before trial.
R v NA, MW, Kingston Crown Court (on appeal) [2025]
Acted for two successful appellants who had been convicted in the magistrates’ court in relation to anti-ULEZ protests during the Mayoral election campaign of 2024. The protests were said to have occurred in the neighbourhood of the Mayor’s private home. With previous representation, the appellants had been convicted by a District Judge pursuant to the rarely-prosecuted statutory offence in section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which is designed to protect public officials and their families from intimidation at home. Liability is however subject to a number of conditions which were to be argued on appeal. The Crown dropped their opposition to the appeals at a pre-trial hearing. See more details here.
R v VO, Peterborough Crown Court [2025]
Acted for a defendant accused of attempting to rape a colleague. After an eight-day trial, drawing extensively on material from the workplace investigation, the defendant was acquitted unanimously in less than one hour. The case involved significant legal argument. See more details here.
R v MAS, Stevenage Youth Court [2024]
Represented a teenage defendant acquitted of inflicting grievous bodily harm to a competitor in the course of a football match at school. The complainant was cross-examined as to his conduct on the pitch and subsequent accounts given to schoolteachers.
R v DK, Wood Green Crown Court [2024]
Represented a pensioner accused of breaking in to a neighbour’s home and stealing items of a trivial value. There was no suggested motive but small amounts of the defendant’s blood were found across and into the threshold of the property. The defence made specific disclosure requests and suggested further questions to be asked of the complainant which, once belatedly answered, resulted in the prosecution offering no evidence.
R v VY, Stratford Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Represented a motorist charged with causing serious injury by careless driving. The defendant was said to have made a damaging admission to a police officer at the scene but the accuracy of the officer’s recollection was doubtful. Following a challenge to the admissibility of what amounted to confession evidence, the charge was withdrawn.
R v CC & Ors, Newcastle Crown Court [2023]
Represented one of four defendants charged with false imprisonment in the course of ‘paedophile hunter’ activities in northern England. After a three-week trial the defendant was one of two who were acquitted.
R v CT & Anr, Leicester Crown Court (on appeal) [2023]
Represented a police officer who successfully appealed her conviction in the magistrates’ court for a public order offence committed while off-duty.
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency v B Ltd, Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2023]
Represented a company among the first to be prosecuted by the DVSA for selling imported e-bikes that were allegedly in breach of UK and EU regulations. An adverse result would have bankrupted the company by compelling a mandatory recall of the products in question. The company was acquitted following legal argument about the correct application of the regulations to the test-purchased e-bikes.
Tom has represented the Metropolitan Police in licensing matters and has experience resolving contested applications to the satisfaction of the police, premises holders, and interested parties. Tom is also familiar with Special Treatment premises licensing, having prosecuted a massage parlour on behalf of a local authority for breach of its license conditions.
Tom is familiar with the licensing requirements and offences contained in the Gambling Act 2005, having been instructed in related POCA proceedings.
Derbyshire Police v ES, Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court [2025]
Represented a student of good character, in civil freezing-order proceedings, who accrued a large sum of money through gambling.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets v CKK, Thames Magistrates’ Court [2023]
Prosecuted a massage parlour subject to the Special Treatment license regime for breaches of its license. Cumulative financial penalty and costs of almost £8,000.
Tom is developing a practice in health and safety law. He is instructed as sole counsel for a company and its director in relation to charges of failing to discharge a section 3 duty, arising from the death of a labourer by electrocution. During pupillage, Tom assisted in drafting advice for potential prosecutions of companies who produced, certified, and marketed cladding products that were used on Grenfell Tower.
R v MB Ltd, AS & Ors, Isleworth Crown Court [ongoing]
Representing a building company said to have failed to discharge the section 3 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 duty to ‘persons other than their employees’ following the death of a labourer by electrocution. The company director is also charged through section 37 and is further charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Due for trial in 2028.
Tom is developing a practice in coronial law and has represented GPs and care home providers in ongoing proceedings.
During pupillage, Tom assisted senior barristers with criminal trials and inquiries overseas – including the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, and the Seychelles – and is familiar with how their rules of law and procedure can differ from England and Wales. During pupillage, Tom also assisted counsel representing Kuwait in that state’s first extradition request at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He has drafted advice concerning requests for mutual legal assistance and the extraterritorial powers of English investigators.
Tom has considerable experience prosecuting for non-CPS public authorities – including allegations of fraudulently obtaining property and selling counterfeit goods – and welcomes instructions to advise private individuals and organisations considering a prosecution.
Tom is well-placed to provide guidance on the early stages of criminal proceedings, having been instructed by a government department to advise on procedural errors by several train operating companies in initiating prosecutions for fare evasion.
During pupillage, Tom assisted a private prosecutor at the sentencing stage by producing schedules to itemise each of the three conspirators’ monetary gains. He has likewise worked as a junior member of a large team in several cases, including SFO and FCA proceedings.
Tom is developing a practice in professional discipline and related fields. Tom recently represented a Metropolitan Police sergeant accused of sexual misconduct and dishonesty, in which the Panel were persuaded to make a rare finding of ‘no case to answer’ before the sergeant had given evidence. He has acted in Nursing and Midwifery Council proceedings.
Tom provides advice and representation to solicitors in relation to wasted costs. He currently represents a firm of criminal solicitors against whom a wasted costs application under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 has been made by the local authority prosecutor following criminal proceedings against the firm’s former client.
Tom has a rare understanding of how a workplace scandal or crisis in regulated professions such as finance and accountancy can develop. Before coming to the Bar, Tom was a financial journalist for five years at Bloomberg. He specialised in covering less-liquid parts of the corporate bond market and companies subject to hedge fund short-selling, a world in which the line between opportunistic but legitimate market behaviour and wrongdoing can be difficult to identify.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v PS SR [2025]
Represented a police sergeant of more than 20 years’ experience who was said to have formed an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior colleague and lied about it when interviewed a decade later. After the complainant’s cross-examination the Panel were persuaded to make a rare finding of ‘no case to answer’ before the sergeant had given evidence. See more details here.
Tom accepts instructions to act in public inquiries and is currently instructed in the Lampard Inquiry concerning the deaths of mental health in-patients in Essex. During his pupillage Tom assisted members of Chambers in their work on the Covid Inquiry, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and an inquiry in Gibraltar.
Tom is a Grade 2 CPS prosecutor and regularly prosecutes for the CPS, local authorities, and regulatory agencies. His current and recent instructions include fraud, robbery, and conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
He is proactive in providing early advice on issues that are likely to prove difficult at trial. He is praised for his witness care and thorough preparation.
Tom is also instructed in relation to confiscation and recently resisted a section 23 application (‘inadequacy of available amount’) from the subject of a confiscation order.
R v NW, SR & KJ [ongoing]
Prosecuting a three-defendant indictment containing numerous offences including conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, valued at approximately £200,000. Due for trial in 2025.
London Borough of Islington v ME, Snaresbrook Crown Court [2025]
Prosecuted an individual who had dishonestly obtained social housing in a case that resolved by guilty pleas shortly before trial. The defendant was ordered to pay compensation of £23,000.
R v LB, Isleworth Crown Court [2025]
Prosecuted a man of good character for offences of violence against an ex-partner, including strangulation, in a trial ending with unanimous convictions on the two most-serious counts.
NK v Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford Crown Court [2024]
Represented a local authority in successfully resisting an application under section 23 POCA to vary (i.e. substantially reduce) a £60,000 confiscation order.
London Borough of Islington v Mailbox Group Ltd, Highbury Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Prosecuted a Mail Forwarding Business for customer due-diligence failures (contrary to section 75 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007) which had hampered a police investigation into the large-scale importation of controlled drugs. The company was fined £16,000. See more details here.
Tom accepts instructions in the field of sports law and has experience dealing with allegations of wrongdoing in a sports context. He recently represented a teenage defendant who was acquitted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a competitor in a football match.
During pupillage, he assisted King’s Counsel advising the British Horseracing Authority on the application of Section C of the Rules of Racing (ownership and registration) to a high-profile individual whom a civil court had determined was responsible for seriously discreditable conduct.
Tom understands the particular pressures faced by sportspeople when confronted with criminal or regulatory proceedings. He recently represented a very high-profile boxer in relation to allegations outside his professional life.
R v MAS, Stevenage Youth Court [2024]
Represented a teenage defendant acquitted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a competitor in the course of a football match at school. The complainant was cross-examined as to his conduct on the pitch and subsequent accounts given to schoolteachers.
The Metropolitan Police will take no further action against the comedian and gender-critical activist Graham…
Technology has been increasingly integrated into the refereeing of professional sport over the last two…
2 Hare Court will be exhibiting at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this year where you…
