Rapist’s appeal turned down

Seedy Tambedou SUS-140104-161225001
Seedy Tambedou SUS-140104-161225001

A doorman who was jailed for raping a woman after a night out in Eastbourne failed in a Court of Appeal bid to clear his name.

Seedy Tambedou, 40, of Langney Road, was accused of raping the woman and then holding her down while his friend, Omar Sanyang, also had sex with her.

In June last year, he was convicted of two counts of rape at Lewes Crown Court and jailed for nine years, while Sanyang got seven years for a single rape.

Tambedou took his case to the Court of Appeal in a bid to overturn his convictions and win his freedom, but saw his case kicked out of court by senior judges in London. Lady Justice Rafferty said the convictions were not “unsafe”.

The court heard that Tambedou and Sanyang had been drinking with the victim and others and went back to a flat in the town to continue the party in the autumn of 2012.

After hours of drinking, Tambedou forced himself upon the woman in the bathroom.

Minutes later, he helped his friend, a 40-year-old care assistant, to rape the woman again in a bedroom.

Tambedou claimed to have had consensual sex with the woman in a kitchen at the property, while Sanyang admitted some sexual contact.

The victim said she had very little recollection of the night, meaning she could not rule out having consented to sex, although she thought she would not have.

Tambedou’s lawyers today argued that the crown court judge had been wrong not to halt the trial for lack of evidence.

An application to discharge the jury because there was “no case to answer” should have been allowed, Lady Justice Rafferty, Mr Justice Cooke and Mr Justice Cranston were told.

Rejecting the appeal, Lady Justice Rafferty said it was only the victim’s lack of memory which led her to say she could not completely rule out having consented.

There was no evidence of her having flirted with Tambedou or having invited sexual contact, or of her being alone with him in the kitchen, she said.

Both Tambedou and Sanyang had admitted that the victim was “very drunk”.

“There was ample evidence to go before the jury so that it could reach a decision as to whether she had capacity to consent and had not consented, or had not the capacity to consent at all,” she continued.

“This case turned on its consideration of all the relevant evidence. It was a classic issue for a jury and the judge appropriately acknowledged that.”

The appeal bid was refused.