Philip Queree, 37, pictured, met the woman on Tinder and they had what was described as 'rough' sex on their second date. She has not been named for legal reasons

A medical student convicted of indecent assault for grabbing a woman's breasts during consensual sex has had his conviction quashed.

Philip Queree, 37, met the woman on Tinder and they had what was described as 'rough' sex on their second date. She has not been named for legal reasons.

But Queree was later taken to court in Jersey for repeatedly grabbing her breasts too hard and pulling her hair while they had intercourse.

Despite consenting to sex with Queree, the victim told him she did not want her breasts touched.

She accused him of using 'excessive force' and causing her pain and bruising even after she told him to stop.

Queree's promising career in medicine was left in ruins and he was placed on the Sex Offender's Register for five years after the trial last August.

But Jersey's Royal Court this week quashed the conviction after ruling that the magistrate in the original case had 'gone wrong in a material way'.

During the trial the woman said: 'I was in a lot of pain. I felt he had been rough with me. I had never experienced anything like this in my life, I had never felt pain in my breasts during sexual intercourse.

'Having my breasts grabbed to me that is not normal behaviour.'

In the Royal Court on Thursday, Advocate David Steenson, who was representing Queree, said that the appeal was based on a matter of law and that there was insufficient evidence in the case for Magistrate Bridget Shaw to have come to the decision she did.

He said that the charge of indecent assault was never appropriate for the case and that his client should have been charged with common assault or grave and criminal assault instead.

The advocate added: 'Her complaints to the defendant did not amount to a complete prohibition of touching her breasts. She was demanding he was more gentle with her not that he wouldn't touch her breasts at all.

Queree was taken to court in Jersey for repeatedly grabbing the woman's breasts too hard and pulling her hair while they had intercourse. His conviction has now been quashed

'Right-thinking members of society wouldn't think that touching your partner's breasts during consensual lovemaking would be indecent. It is nothing out of the ordinary, it is implicitly accepted.'

Advocate Steenson told the court that the main point the prosecution made at the time of the trial was that the assault had been indecent because the woman had forbid Mr Queree from touching her breasts.

He however doubted that 'that kind of script' was given during a sexual encounter he described as 'vigorous sex making.'

He added: 'It's really inconceivable that if the defendant had touched the complainant's breasts extremely gently in the way she enjoyed she would have objected to it. That's a matter of common sense.'

Advocate Steenson said that the issue at the heart of the case was the force used and that therefore the proper charge for it was that of 'conventional assault', not an indecent one.

The original case was heard at Jersey Magistrate's Court, pictured

Crown Advocate Conrad Yates, for the prosecution, told the court that Magistrate Shaw's decision was not a 'snap' one but rather the result of a 'careful reasoned judgment.'

He added: 'The important issue is not whether the injuries were caused before consent was withdrawn, but whether consent was indeed withdrawn and if the defendant continued to grab her breasts in that knowledge.'

He maintained the assault was indecent because Mr Queree had been touching a part of the complainant's body that is 'sexual.'

Mr Yates said that the sex had only been consensual 'to the extent that she told him not to grab her breasts.'

He added that conditional consent was given when the pair carried on having sex, saying the victim was 'willing to carry on if he didn't touch her breasts.'

Returning the Court's judgment, the Bailiff Sir William Bailhache said that the court was satisfied that the 'Magistrate went wrong in a material way' and set aside Queree's conviction.

The reasons behind this decision will be published at a later date.

Speaking after the successful appeal, Mr Queree's dad Norman said the family did not want to comment.

He previously said: 'This has been very upsetting and traumatic enough. I don't think we want any more publicity.'