A BOLTON man today had his sex conviction overturned after appeal judges decided a juror in his original trial may have persuaded the rest of the jury to find him guilty "for improper purposes".

London's Criminal Appeal Court was told that the juror had suggested Frank Ormesher's punishment should be doing some free work on the juror's land.

It meant 30-year-old Mr Ormesher, of Halliwell, left court a free man after three judges found his conviction was unsafe.

He had been jailed for two years in February at Bolton Crown Court after a jury had convicted him, by a majority verdict of 10 to two, of indecent assault. Mr Ormesher had been accused of rape and indecent assault by a prostitute who said he had grabbed her from behind, got her into an alleyway and pushed her to the ground in March, 2000.

But when arrested by the police, he said he did not recollect whether he had been with the prostitute that night, saying he had had "umpteen young ladies".

He agreed he had sexual activity with a woman in the alleyway four weeks earlier, but denied it was without her consent. Tests revealed semen on her jacket matched DNA from Mr Ormesher.

The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict with a majority in favour of finding him not guilty of both charges.

However, when the trial judge told them to return a majority verdict, they found him not guilty of rape but guilty of indecent assault.

A note, signed by three jurors, asking the judge to show "leniency", was sent with documents showing one of the jurors owned some land.

Appeal judge, Lord Justice Latham, sitting with Mr Justice Buckley and Mr Justice Wright, said: "The inference from all of the documents clearly was he considered he could do with some help in working on that land." He said the Crown had responsibly taken the view the verdict was unsafe, adding: "It is clear from the second note and the materials delivered with it that one of the jurors might be thought to have had an interest in a guilty verdict.

"There must therefore be a real danger that that juror may have persuaded other jurors, for improper purposes, to reach a compromise verdict which did not truly reflect the views in question."