He's not willing to be arrested in the Ecuadorean embassy which - as ruled by a UK court more informed on Swedish legal processes than you are - is the purpose of the formal questioning process the Swedish government wishes to undertake. Assange's position is broadly equivalent to a fugitive insisting that the state's unwillingness to mail him his Miranda rights proves that it's them and not him trying to evade justice.

Strangely, I have never heard it suggested that it represents a major failing of judicial systems for not trying and convicting other alleged rapists whilst they're on the run. The point of a trial, is after all to ensure that criminals are not only fairly treated, but also given the legally mandated punishment.

The Swedish prosecutor has been heavily criticised in Sweden for the failure to interview him, and finally did agree to negotiate terms to question him in the embassy, so clearly they can. They just didn't want to.

So assume they finally hammer out terms with Ecuador so they can interview him. Let's assume the outcome of the interview is that the prosecutor formally charges him. (as everybody expects, because there's been no suggestion Assange has cast iron evidence that could radically change the prosecution's view that it's worth bringing to trial) What happens then? Are we genuinely expecting him to walk out accompanied by a couple of police officers and get on a plane to face trial in Sweden? Or do we expect him to stay put, perhaps issuing new legal challenges claiming there were elements of the questioning process that weren't conducted under Swedish law and so the original warrant is now invalid...

Regardless of whether one of five Swedish Supreme court justices chose to write a dissenting opinion criticising Ms Ny's handling of the case, do we really think that the questioning in the embassy is going mean Assange suddenly stops doing everything in his power to avoid standing trial in Sweden?

Clearly it's possible for the Swedish prosecutor to find a means to interview him in the embassy. They could use the telephone. They could use a videoconferencing system. They could get on a plane.

Why should they?

They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning. Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them? (Assange's fears about extradition to the US aren't relevant to the Swedish prosecutor if they aren't intending to do that).

If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!

>Why should they?

Because, as confirmed by the Swedish supreme court, that's their fucking job.

> They have a valid arrest warrant for a fugitive. Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning.

This is not true

>Why does this fugitive have the right to insist a public servant comes to see them?

Why does anyone have a right to due process? Assange has every right to respond to the Swedish enquiry from the UK, but the prosecutor has not allowed him to make his statement on the accusations against him.

>fugitive

What are you smoking? Assange is not a fugitive in Sweden, the only country that could consider him a fugitive is the UK.

>If I were a prosecutor dealing with a busy case load I might well do the same: especially when I can leave the whole mess for the UK to deal with!

But in Sweden you can't, as the courts have confirmed. This is like locking someone up in jail until trial and refusing to interview them because you're busy.

> Why should they?

Because it quickly became clear that the alternative was not to be able to interview him, and they have a legal duty to seek justice. Justice has not gotten done by refusing their best opportunity to interview him.

> Their usual process is for the fugitive to be brought to a convenient location in Sweden for questioning.

Yet they deviate from this regularly, and actually did so in another case during Assange's extradition hearings.

> The point of a trial, is after all to ensure that criminals are not only fairly treated, but also given the legally mandated punishment.

I think you mean "alleged criminals" and "sentence dictated by law".

You seem to think Assange gets to make the rules and choose how he gets treated. There's a European arrest warrant, the UK needs to arrest him and he needs to go to Sweden.

The UK is not, however, compelled to use this extraordinary level of resources on a single person. As we can clearly see since it has been drastically scaled back. The only reason for this kind of resource usage was because of Assange's profile.

Only rules Assange has violated are UK rules, for which he may face repercussions in the UK. Not Sweden.

Assange has unquestionably been playing by the Swedish rules, as has been confirmed by the Swedish supreme court.

Assange has no duty to return to Sweden, but the prosecutor does have a duty to give him a chance to respond to the allegations against him.

Assange is playing by the rules and that's why he's in the Embassy. He's following the rules to the book and so are the authorities.

Why should they, well if they wish to bring justice and save money they should do it. Because if they do not, then the time expires which for the rape warrant is in 4 years. And justice will not be done.

Skipping bail when the Supreme Court rules against you is not "playing by the rules" by any definition.

Of course it is. 'The rules' include things like "committing rape can cause rape allegations", "proving a rape allegation false causes criminal proceedings against the accuser", "skipping bail causes the authorities to pursue", "breaking/revoking diplomatic status damages foreign relations", etc.

The whole point of 'the rules' is that they apply to criminals; the only way to force something on criminals (or anyone) is to make them unavoidable, i.e. make it impossible to not play by the rules.

It's not like a game of chess, where the rules don't account for the use of tanks; or DRM, where "the rules" only apply to those with legal copies. It's more like Nomic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic), where the rules allow the rules to change. The difference is that Nomic's initial set of rules require unanimous agreement to rule changes (so any unfortunate consequences are ultimately a player's 'own fault' for agreeing to something long ago); the real world's initial rules were natural selection, which is a horrific way to live.

You've a pretty unusual idea of the meaning of rules. We're talking about a legal process. The rules are the laws of England and Sweden.

Why should he be allowed to dictate the terms of his questioning? Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?

Because he has a right to respond to the allegations against him, and being in Sweden isn't necessary (neither from a legal nor a practical point of view) for that.

>Nobody else would get that treatment, so why should he?

Except the 44 people that did, you should do a little research before making such statements in the future.

Yes, he has a right to respond to the allegations. But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen. The Swedish authorities may decide to grant him that request, but he doesn't have the right to demand it. It's breathtakingly arrogant of him to suggest that he can. He has exercised his right to challenge the EAW and lost comprehensively.

Assange isn't breaking any Swedish rules or laws by not showing up in Sweden (he did however violate his UK bail).

I'm not sure what makes you think that he deserves the special treatment that he's currently receiving, it is common practice for Swedish authorities to interview people abroad (44 times in the UK!).

>But he doesn't have a right to dictate terms on how that should happen

Of course he does, he has an irrevocable right to defend himself against the allegations against him. His behaviour does not take that right away from him, nor can the Swedish prosecutor dictate the terms of that. Especially after the Swedish supreme court sided with Assange here.

It's also worth noting that the prosecutors duty isn't to Assange, but to the legal system. The goal of the legal system is to find whether or not Assange is guilty, not to punish him. By refusing to interview Assange in the embassy the prosecutor has betrayed the court system and breached her duty.

Because the alternative is no questioning. The Swedish prosecutor has, by refusing to arrange to question him in London when it became clear she was unlikely to get him to Sweden, effectively denied justice both to Assange and to the women in question.

The only person who has denied justice to Assange and the women is Julian Assange, when he skipped bail.