Tom Beardsworth practises across Chambers’ core specialisms.
The principal part of Tom’s practice is criminal prosecution and defence. He is trusted by instructing solicitors to handle an increasingly serious caseload including, as sole counsel, allegations of attempted rape, false imprisonment, and a bomb hoax.
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.
Tom has represented a number of businesspeople, sports figures, and professionals in criminal, coronial, and disciplinary proceedings. Tom recently represented a Metropolitan Police sergeant accused of predatory sexual behaviour 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 civil and quasi-criminal issues. He recently advised the Department for Transport on the consequences of procedural errors by several train operating companies in their prosecutions of fare evaders. Tom 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.
Before coming to the Bar, Tom worked for five years as a financial journalist at Bloomberg.
Tom accepts Direct Access instructions.
Tom is often instructed by the prosecution in the fields of business crime and financial services. Among his recent cases are:
Tom has also represented defendants, including one said to have dishonestly claimed on their home insurance and several accused of handling criminal property. Tom is familiar with the offences in the Company Directors Disqualification Act, having completed a substantial draft advice for senior members of Chambers during pupillage.
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.
In the civil jurisdiction, Tom acts for both applicants and respondents in account and cash freezing and forfeiture applications pursuant to Part 5 of POCA.
Before coming to the Bar, Tom was a financial journalist for five years. He has a sound understanding of capital markets in general and the less liquid parts of the corporate bond market in particular. Of equal or greater importance, he developed an understanding of how a financial-market scandal or crisis feels to people in the middle of it.
Derbyshire Police v ES, Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court [ongoing]
Representing 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 60-year-old family jewelry 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.
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.
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 recently advised the Department for Transport, led by King’s Counsel, on the consequences of procedural errors by several train operating companies in their prosecutions of fare evaders.
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 [ongoing]
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 jewelry 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]
Advised the Department for Transport on the consequences of procedural errors by several train operating companies (some of them government-owned) in their prosecutions of fare evaders over many years. Led by King’s Counsel. For more information see here.
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 in consumer and trading standards matters. In the civil jurisdiction he also has experience applying for Closure Orders and Food Condemnation Orders.
Westminster City Council v RR Ltd, J & R Traders Ltd, Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2024]
Successful application pursuant to the Food Safety Act to condemn (i.e. dispose of) various products being sold in ‘candy’ stores in the West End.
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.
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, including allegations of attempted rape, false imprisonment, wounding with intent, and a bomb hoax.
Tom knows from experience the value of preparatory work before trial, particularly in relation to admissibility and disclosure. Tom recently secured the discontinuance of proceedings in one case by challenging the admissibility of confession evidence, in another following representations on modern slavery, and in another through a disclosure request, 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, Tom was seconded to a leading law firm to assist with case preparation in what will be the first prosecution under the National Security Act 2023 for espionage and ‘foreign interference’ offences.
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 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.
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 CC, Snaresbrook Crown Court [2023]
Represented a vulnerable woman with a troubled history who had stabbed her boyfriend in the leg in testing circumstances. After an early guilty plea to inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, the judge was persuaded to suspend the two-year custodial sentence.
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 [ongoing]
Representing a student of good character, in civil account 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 seeks to develop a practice in health and safety law. In pupillage, Tom assisted in drafting advice about potential prosecutions of companies who produced, certified, and marketed cladding products that were used on Grenfell Tower. He has a good understanding of sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Tom is developing a practice in coronial law and recently represented a GP practice where a potential issue was whether the practice missed an opportunity to notice neglect. During his pupillage, Tom assisted members of Chambers in inquest work, including an Article 2 inquest concerning the police’s purported failure to respond promptly to reports of domestic violence before the victim was later killed by her partner.
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 has a growing practice in professional discipline. In particular, Tom has recently represented several police officers in both criminal and disciplinary proceedings in relation to allegations of misconduct.
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 specialized 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. 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 strangulation. Tom 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.
Tom has undertaken work for the CPS Appeals Unit as a disclosure junior in an appeal against a historic conviction.
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.
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.
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.
A Police Misconduct Panel has found that Tom Beardsworth’s client, a police sergeant of more…
A jury at the Crown Court in Peterborough has unanimously acquitted Tom Beardsworth’s client of…
We are delighted to announce that Thomas Beardsworth has accepted an invitation to join chambers…
