The warrant was only withdrawn because without being able to interview Assange, the investigators cannot move forward. They have also reserved the right to reopen the case should Assange return to Sweden before the statute of limitations expires in 2020.
He also wasn't charged with rape, he was sought for questioning. And he consistently offered the Swedish Prosecutor to answer all questions from London, which the Swedish Prosecutor declined.
Well yes, obviously, they would question him and then determine whether or not to charge him. The point is that they couldn't charge him without first arresting him.
Yes, the prosecutor can prosecute the case as they see fit. They're not obliged to question Assange on his own terms.
From the original ruling on the EAW (p. 20):
>Here is it necessary to focus clearly on the facts of the case. Clear and specific serious allegations have been
made against Mr Assange in Sweden. Attempts have been made by the Swedish prosecutor as long ago as
September to interview him. He has not been interviewed. The Swedish system anticipates detention and early
questioning in allegations of this type, but this has not taken place. Mr Assange is not known to have returned to
Sweden since September. I have no doubt that this defendant is wanted for prosecution in Sweden. On the
information before me I cannot say when or what step was taken that can fairly be described as the
commencement of a prosecution. What I can say is that the boundary between suspicion and preliminary
enquiries on the one hand, and prosecution on the other, has been crossed. It may be that after interrogation
and further enquiries the matter will not be pursued. As Ms Ny says, a formal decision to charge is taken at a
later stage in Sweden than it is here. In this jurisdiction a person can be charged with rape or sexual assault by a
custody sergeant and may then wait many months before the case is discontinued. In Sweden the decision to
formally charge is followed very shortly by the trial itself, if the defendant is in custody.
Right, because investigation and prosecution of an alleged crime is impossible without the suspect's testimony.
It was a trumped-up allegation. The timing and nature of it alone should have raised flags. Whatever truth there is to it does not warrant the diplomatic circus this has become.
Whether their claims have any merit or not is not for me to say, but how many other womens' rape allegations result in an international extradition effort...just for questioning?
The government wanted him already. Now they had a reason to bring him in, by making a bigger deal out of allegations they would otherwise ignore.
Most people don’t flee their country’s legal system, and if they do they’re quietly pursued. Even fewer loudly defy their country’s legal system, but when they do they tend to be loudly pursued as a deterrent. It doesn’t get more public and defiant than taking shelter in a foreign country’s embassy while declaring both your innocence, and that your home country is corrupt and lying about you. Very few countries would take that lying down.
Then you add the prexisting desire to nab him, but only then.