New Park Court Chambers

Crime, Regulatory

Acknowledged as an accomplished and polished advocate, James Bourne-Arton KC has a national reputation for defending and prosecuting serious and financial corporate crimes, including complex fraud, professional disciplinary, and regulatory work.

James has developed a legal practice defending finance professionals and company directors accused of fraud and offences under the Financial Services & Markets Act. He has experience in all areas of financial crime, including missing trader cases, cash detention and forfeiture, copyright, money laundering, and confiscation.

A fearless and persuasive advocate, James is known for giving clear and commercially astute legal advice in cases that involve a large amount of evidence, and he has the ability to make complex legal and financial issues easily digestible. James has a sharp grasp of tax regimes, financial procedures and business regulations, which aids in his preparation, presentation and delivery. His confident and pragmatic style is beneficial when preparing or cross-examining witnesses and explaining pivotal legal points to lay clients and juries.

James's corporate and financial crime work naturally overlaps with his professional disciplinary and regulatory cases. James has developed a reputation as fearlessly representing individuals brought before their regulatory bodies. He has been instructed by a broad range of professionals at disciplinary and conduct hearings, including those practising in medicine, finance, insurance and the police, both at first instance and on appeal in the High Court.

He provides legal advice and representation to Doctors at the General Medical Council on cases brought before the Interim Orders Panel and the Fitness to Practise tribunal. James also advises nurses and midwives on all matters before the Nursing and Midwifery Council, including fitness to practise, impairments, competence and physical or mental ill health. He is renowned for giving sound legal advice clearly and concisely.

James is experienced in conducting advocacy in connection with the legislative provisions enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency (EA). As a junior barrister, he was appointed to List B of the Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health and Safety and Environmental Law, used by the Health and Safety Executive, Environment Agency and Office of Rail Regulation to conduct their higher court prosecution work and other regulatory advocacy.

James’s multi-disciplinary practice means he can bring expertise from one area to another. He is in demand to act for individuals charged with serious criminal offences, including murder, terrorism and organised crime.

Financial & Corporate Crime

Experienced in all areas of financial crime for both the Defence and Prosecution. Expertise includes missing trader cases, cash detention and forfeiture, copyright, money laundering and confiscation. In addition to dealing with a number of Cash Forfeiture Orders James has been instructed in a number of large Asset Forfeiture applications on behalf of the respondent. Acted in prosecutions brought by the following authorities: SFO, CPS, Revenue & Customs, SOCA, DWP, DTI, BERR, NHS and FACT.

• R v JH [2026]: Represented a police officer accused of fraudulently claiming expenses whilst acting as secretary of the police federation over a seven-year period.
• R v DW (2026): 25 people were charged with an MTIC VAT fraud. Represented Defendant who was alleged to have created a Portuguese company to sell to the conspirators in the UK at a low price to generate legitimate sales against which the fraudulently reclaimed VAT could be offset against.
• J v DOK (2026): Acted for the private prosecutor bringing a criminal prosecution on behalf of himself and 23 others who had been victims of the Defendant’s online crypto scam. As a result of the preparation and presentation, the Defendant pleaded guilty. The confiscation proceedings resulted in the Defendant being ordered Defendant to pay £9million as compensation.

Homicide

• R v N and N (2025): Prosecuted identical twins who killed a local drug dealer. The jury found both men guilty of manslaughter. The case was complicated by the issue of joint enterprise and proving the requisite intent.  Successfully resisted a submission of no case to answer.
• R v VM (2025): Defended a man charged with murdering his partner. The central issue was causation and involved scrutinising the medical evidence from two forensic pathologists and a forensic neuropathologist.
• R v KJ (2025): Defended a man who, along with three others, was jointly charged with murder. The Defendant was acquitted of murder.

Serious Crime

James has vast experience in all areas of crime, including murder, rape and serious sexual offences. Accomplished in dealing with difficult and sensitive cases with an emphasis on client care. Specific expertise in drug conspiracies and cases involving serious sexual offences. Including young victims of sexual assault. Adept at dealing with expert evidence both in relation to presentation before juries and cross-examination.

• R v CB (2025): Prosecuted the Defendant who was charged with doing acts capable of encouraging suicide. The case required LOR to obtain evidence from Holland.
• R v DP [2025]: Prosecuted two men charged with raping a vulnerable woman. One Defendant was further charged with raping a second vulnerable woman. Required careful handling of vulnerable witnesses.
• R v WM [2025]: Represented a man accused of trafficking women into the UK to exploit them by forcing them to work as prostitutes. The case involved cross-examining a number of vulnerable women over video links in foreign jurisdictions.

Professional Discipline

• Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v PC K – Successfully overturned the decision of the disciplinary panel on appeal to the Police Appeal Tribunal. The appeal was brought on the basis that the panel’s decision to find the officer’s actions amounted to gross misconduct.  The appeal succeeded under rule 4(4)c on the basis the proceedings had not been properly recorded and this could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action.
• GMC v Dr K: A fitness to practice hearing including charges of dishonesty. The matter was complicated by the fact the Dr was a Greek national and much of the evidence related to convictions in foreign jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the panel found the Dr had acted dishonestly the sanction was a three month suspension. The decision was appealed to the High Court where although the decision was upheld the judge questioned what the public interest had been in bringing proceedings in the first place.
• GMC v Dr L: An interim order application for a Dr with previous adverse findings against him by the GMC. Notwithstanding the new allegations and his previous adverse findings after submissions from Counsel the Panel refused the GMC’s application for an interim order.