[vidarh]

Again: There are no charges. There is an arrest warrant to question him on suspicion. Charges would be the next step if they decide to proceed.

The UK courts found that the Swedish prosecutors unilateral interpretation of the evidence as stated in the EAW would amount to rape under UK law.

But this description has not been used to file charges with a Swedish court, and the woman in question have previously claimed to the press that she refuses to sign the statements that the prosecutor has based this description on. So at this stage it is pure speculation whether or not the prosecutors even believe they have anything that amounts to sufficient basis for a rape charge.

This does not mean that it's not possible that they will file actual rape charges. It does mean that it is worth pointing out that the only clear cut accusation of rape so far comes from the prosecutor, and that only in a document she has every opportunity to ignore the contents off for the future should she so choose.

It would most certainly not be the first time a Scandinavian prosecutor have used claims in an arrest warrant only to end up with no charges at all or much reduced charges once they actually have to file documents backed up by the evidence in front of a court with the power to actually investigate the evidence.

[rmc]

"Again: There are no charges."

Yes and no. Yes has has not been charged, however the Swedish court system is different. In the High Court appeal to the extradition, the English judge ruled that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged" (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html). So he it is the opinion of the English courts that has been the equivalent of "charged".

[vidarh]

The opinion of the English courts is based on representations of the Swedish prosecutor on the express basis that the extradition does not need to concern itself with what evidence there is to support those representations.

In other words, it says nothing about whether or not there is a sufficient basis for charging him in Sweden, nor about whether the proseutors office will actually feel confident enough to actually go through with charges if they get hold of him.

It only says that if the Swedish prosecutor does indeed have sufficient evidence to get a Swedish court to charge him based on claims supporting the same allegations she has made in the EAW, then it would also be a crime in England and Wales.

Which raises the question of why Marianne Ny has doggedly insisted on carrying out this case in a manner that has prevented it from moving forward, nor tried to get him charged in absentia, which the Swedish system most most certainly allows her to do.