The 37-year-old’s lawyer, Advocate David Steenson, had submitted that his client ought to have been facing a straight assault charge.
Mr Queree was found guilty of the crime in the Magistrate’s Court in September last year after it was heard that he pulled the woman’s hair and repeatedly grabbed her breasts despite being told to stop.
His case attracted widespread national media attention and sparked fierce debate about what constituted acceptable behaviour during sexual intercourse.
The couple had met through the dating app Tinder and had sex after their second date.
The offences were alleged to have taken place while the couple were in bed at the woman’s flat on 20 August.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was, the Magistrate’s Court was told, left heavily bruised by Mr Queree’s actions.
His medical career was reported to have been left in tatters by the conviction. He was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years and sentenced to 180 hours of community service.
Advocate Steenson argued that there had been issues with the evidence that influenced the decision of the Magistrate, Bridget Shaw.
He said that the charge of indecent assault was inappropriate and that Mr Queree should have instead faced an assault charge because the pair had consented to sex.
Speaking at his client’s sentencing last year, Advocate Steenson said that the case had ‘substantially ruined’ the defendant’s life.
‘His life has gone from being an extremely promising one, from being a doctor, to being unemployed,’ he 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.’
Crown Advocate Conrad Yates, prosecuting, had argued that the assault was indecent because Mr Queree had touched a part of her body which was sexual. It was heard in evidence before the Magistrate that the woman had asked him to stop grabbing her breasts, as he was causing her pain.
Delivering the court’s judgment, the Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, quashed Mrs Shaw’s ruling.
