NORWICH RAPIST JOSEPH EDWARDS GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL CONVICTION
A Norwich man serving a seven-and-a-half-year sentence after he was convicted of raping a woman in the street has succeeded in the first stage of an Appeal Court bid to clear his name.Joseph Edwards, 36, of Fakenham Road, Taverham, Norwich, was jailed at Norwich Crown Court in July 2009, but he claims trial jurors were under pressure to reach a verdict late on a Friday afternoon as his trial drew to a close.
The former CNS pupil had denied any wrongdoing, but was convicted of rape after the jury reached a majority verdict.
He was convicted of grabbing the woman on Lower Clarence Road, Norwich, in February last year, and forcing her to perform a sex act.
The court had heard how a fireman who lived near the scene of the attack heard the victim's cries and saw the attack happening through his flat window.
He called the police and stayed on the phone to them until officers arrived and found Edwards and the victim.
Edwards was initially jailed for nine years, but that was cut to seven and a half years on appeal in June last year.
He was also placed on the sec offenders' register.
In mitigation at his sentencing in July 2009, Richard Wood had said that Edwards had no similar previous offences and that he had 'drink demons' which he was trying to overcome.
And today, Lord Justice Richards, Mr Justice Eady and Mr Justice Holroyde, sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, granted Edwards permission to appeal against conviction, after his lawyers claimed jurors were put under 'undue pressure' to reach a verdict.
Edwards' legal team submitted that, as it was late on a Friday afternoon when the jury retired to consider their verdict, the judge ought to have specifically told them they were under no pressure of time to reach a decision before the weekend.
'Extraordinary comments' made by the prosecution regarding the rate of rape convictions in Norfolk were also criticised.
Mr Justice Eady said that Edwards had an 'arguable case' that the jury had felt under pressure and that his conviction was 'unsafe'.
'Things seem to have gone a little awry that afternoon,' commented the judge.
'Having considered the matter carefully, we think this deserves development before the full Appeal Court,' the judge concluded, allowing the application for permission to appeal.
An hour-long hearing before the full court will now go ahead at a later date, yet to be set.
