Two men who were part of a gang who repeatedly raped and sexually abused a woman have argued their convictions should be overturned.
Hemin Kamal Salimpirik and Kuchar Mohammed Rahim were sentenced to 17 years and 15 years respectively for their parts in the attack.
On sending the pair to prison in June of this year, the judge told them they had treated their victim "like a dog" and left her drugged and abused on the floor.
But the case came back to court this week when a barrister for the pair argued before the Court of Appeal sitting in Swansea Crown Court that their convictions were unsafe, and their sentences excessive.
In November last year the victim - who has lifelong anonymity and cannot be named - went to Salimpirik's house in Caerphilly for sex.
However when she arrived she found half a dozen men in the property smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol.
The woman was given a drink spiked with a sedative, and "at least" four of the men raped her.
Salimpirik aged 33, was convicted of four counts of rape, and 35-year-old Rahim, of one count of rape following a trial at Newport Crown Court.
Both were also ordered to sign the sex offenders register for life.
On Wednesday Alex Greenwod, barrister for the pair, asked Lord Justice Hickinbottom, Mr Justice Lewis, and Mr Justice Jacobs sitting as the Court of Appeal to grant permission for the defendants to appeal against the convictions.
He argued there were "material irregularities" concerning the way the original trial had been adjourned for three days while the jury was deliberating because the judge had been unable to sit.
This adjournment meant the case ran into the following week, and this in turn meant one of the jurors was unable to continue to sit because of proper commitments - this juror was subsequently discharged, and the other 11 continued in their absence.
The barrister said the adjournment, taken with the weekend which followed it, had led to a five day delay in the jurors resuming their deliberations, and there was a danger they had become distracted or that the evidence had faded from their minds.
Mr Greenwood also raised concerns about the way judge Jeremy Jenkins had summed-up the evidence in the trial, and the relative weights he had given to prosecution and defence testimony.
The barrister also asked the judges to allow an appeal against the sentences the defendants received on the grounds they were "manifestly excessive" given the personal mitigation available to each man.
The appeal judges rejected his arguments.
Delivering the findings, Lord Justice Hickinbottom said the adjournment in the trial had been "unfortunate" but there was no evidence it had led to the jury "losing focus" and not being able to perform its proper duty.
The bid to seek leave to appeal against the convictions and sentences was rejected on all grounds.
The court heard the other men in the house at the time of the rapes have not been charged.