A junior doctor convicted of indecent assault after grabbing a woman's breasts during consensual sex despite her asking him not to claimed he was 'pretty passionate' because it was their 'first time'.

Philip Queree, 37, was taken to court for repeatedly grabbing the woman's breasts and pulling her hair while the couple had intercourse after meeting on Tinder.

Despite consenting to having sex with Queree, the victim told him she did not want her breasts touched and accused him of using 'excessive force'.

Queree has now been placed on the Sex Offender's Register for five years - ruining his dream of becoming a doctor, according to his barrister.

Philip Queree has been convicted of indecent assault after grabbing a woman's breast during sex. A court heard the woman had consented to sex but felt the grabbing was 'excessive'

A judgement paper released by magistrate Bridget Shaw recounted how the incident happened in August 2016.

The defendant, then 36, was a mature student in the third year of study at a London medical school who was staying with his parents in Jersey in the summer holidays when he met the female healthcare worker.

Mrs Shaw said after meeting via Tinder and getting on well during their first date they agreed to meet again two days later.

She said on Friday, August 19 they went for a walk on the beach and had a surprise dinner at a harbourside restaurant.

Mrs Shaw found: 'They were affectionate and kissing and they talked about a future relationship.'

She said they agreed to stop using Tinder and to date exclusively.

Mrs Shaw continued: 'Later that evening they went to her flat where they engaged in sexual intercourse.

'The woman's evidence was that during intercourse he grabbed her breasts very forcibly.

'She was in pain. At first she said nothing but moved position to avoid her breasts being touched. Again he grabbed her breasts.

'She wanted to continue sexual intercourse but was in pain and did not want her breasts to be touched again.

'She was crying and told him that he had been rough. She told him not to grab her breasts.

'He apologised and agreed, after which they recommenced sexual intercourse.

'However he grabbed her breasts again twice more in the same manner as before, causing her severe pain.'

Queree, pictured, told the court their sex was completely consensual but the woman, known as Miss X, sustained bruising to her breasts. He has now been ordered to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for five years which he claims has ruined his medical career

Mrs Shaw said the woman - referred to throughout as Miss X - cried out and told him again that he had been rough with her.

She said the victim was very shaken and went to the bathroom where she noticed red marks on her breasts which had developed into significant bruising.

Queree told the court he agreed that the encounter took place but insisted that all acts were consensual.

Mrs Shaw added: 'Within the context of sexual intercourse he believed he had implied consent to touch her breasts and did so. He described fondling and caressing them.'

In his defence, Queree claimed that at no time did she tell him not to touch her breasts although he said she did at one stage ask him, in non specific terms, to be more gentle and he complied.

The court was told: 'She had given consent to sexual intercourse and therefore had implicitly given consent to her breasts being touched in a sexual manner.

'By her account she later specifically withdrew consent for her breasts being touched even though she continued otherwise to consent to sexual intercourse.

'She said that he had continued to grab her breasts despite the withdrawal of consent and in the knowledge that consent had been withdrawn.'

What is the law on indecent assault and consent? An indecent assault is defined in law as 'offensive sexual contact with another person', according to the Sexual Offences Act 1956. It is usually used to prosecute cases where someone has been stroked, kissed or grabbed, without their consent. In this highly unusual case, the offence was still deemed to have taken place even though the victim had consented to other sexual activity. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 gives the rather open definition of consent as 'if [the person] agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Juries are often asked to decide whether a defendant in a sex case had a 'reasonable belief' the complainant consented, or whether it was clear to them that the person did not consent. Advertisement

Giving evidence to the trial, Miss X said she saw it as the beginning of a relationship and had 'fallen for him'.

Mrs Shaw added: 'After she showed him the bruise he responded that he had had rougher sex than that.

'She did not want him to leave and did not want to believe what had happened.

'She wanted him to stay and discuss it. His demeanour then changed. He had tears in his eyes and said he needed to go and think about what he had done to her.

'He then stormed out the door. She was in complete and utter shock and texted him, imploring him to return.

'She wanted him to come back and give an explanation and just could not equate his behaviour in the bedroom with his previous charming behaviour.

'She maintained during cross examination that she had told him to stop grabbing her breasts yet he went on to do so twice more.

'She strongly rejected the suggestion that this was a case of a difference in expectations of sexual behaviour between a couple who hardly knew each other.'

In police interview Queree agreed that he had touched her breasts during sexual intercourse but felt that that was reasonable behaviour.

He said they were both 'excited' as it was their first sexual encounter.

He told cops that they were not using protection and he said he ensured that he did not ejaculate.

On leaving the bathroom he confirmed she said she was sore but he thought that he meant her vagina was sore.

Queree said he was surprised when police had mentioned injury to her breasts.

He also denied she had told him not to do something or to stop doing something.

He suggested she might 'bruise easily' and added they were both quite drunk and both very enthusiastic. To him this had just been normal sex.

Giving evidence during the trial he said she had been a 'willing participant' and he had no indication that she was not enjoying it.

He claimed he had stroked and caressed her hair and had not pulled it.

Queree said the intercourse was 'pretty passionate as befits two people engaging in their first sexual encounter.'

Magistrates at this court in Jersey found the doctor guilty of indecent assault this week

But Mrs Shaw rejected his version of events and found him guilty of indecent assault.

In conclusion, she said: 'I am sure that she withdrew her consent for him to grab her breasts; but he knew this and continued to do so forcefully, causing her severe pain.

'This was an assault. He touched a sexual and intimate part of her body in a sexual manner without her consent.

'Irrespective of her consent to other sexual conduct, I am sure that the touching was in circumstances of indecency and thus he is guilty of indecent assault.

'I found her to be a compelling, coherent and honest witness.

'Some aspects of her evidence might be thought to be illogical, specifically why she would continue to consent to sexual intercourse with a man who had hurt her and why she would plead to him to return to the flat.

'She gave credible reasons for her actions which I accept are true.

'She felt she was falling in love with him. She thought they were at the beginning of a relationship; a relationship she wanted to continue.

The court heard the couple had sex on their second date after meeting on Tinder

'I find it credible that she wanted to continue sexual intercourse but that she tried to put a limit on his conduct and asked him not to grab her painful breasts again.

'I conclude that he was untruthful when he said that she had not complained to him and asked him to stop touching her breasts; that nothing unusual had happened and that they had parted on good terms.'

Queree was also sentenced to 180 hours' community service after being found guilty of one count of indecent assault during the trial.

In deciding to put Queree on the Sex Offenders Register, she said: 'I am concerned that you pose a risk of sexual harm to others.'

Advocate David Steenson, defending, said that the case had ruined the defendant's life.

He said: 'His life has gone from being an extremely promising one, from being a doctor, to being unemployed.'

He said the defendant, a first offender, was claiming income support and would now be living on £92 a week while staying at his parents' home.

Advocate Steenson added: 'Queree is in a parlous financial state, as he does not have a job.

'He has no savings. He has, essentially, been an academic most of his life. Going forward, he has little chance of getting work in the medical field as a result of this conviction.'

The lawyer said a social inquiry report had concluded that there was a very low risk of the defendant re-offending at any future point.

He added that Queree intended to appeal against the conviction to the Channel Islands' Royal Court.