Swedish Prosecution Authority vs Julian Assange 2015

Monday this week marked an anniversary he could well do without.

It's been 1,000 days since he was granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London SW1 in order to avoid extradition to Sweden. 1,000 days of self-imposed exile and 1,000 days of living – if you can call it that - in a holding pattern.

He, of course is Julian Assange, the Townsville, Queensland born journalist and founder of Wikileaks.

While Assange is known best for Cablegate, the dumping of 251,000 United States embassy cables, inthe Australian context Assange exposed just how deceitful some of our politicians are. We now know that as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd for years told us one thing about China - what a peaceful, warm, cute and cuddly nation it is - while spinning an altogether different yarn about the Middle Kingdom when chewing the fat with former United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. This begs the question: was Rudd lying to the Australian people or lying to Madame Secretary?

Every day of Assange's three long years at the embassy has been a reminder of just how petrified he was – and remains – of being extradited to Sweden from where he could easily become a victim of President Barack Obama's extraordinary rendition program quicker that you can say "gravlax".

While Swedish prosecutors have at long last consented to interviewing him in London over alleged sex crimes, their about face didn't come about in a vacuum. Nor did it come about through any display of good faith.

Tvärtom!

On 20 November last year the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm's Gamla Stan upheld Assange's arrest order for questioning about the sexual assault allegations. While refusing his claim to set aside the order of the lower court, the Court of Appeal criticized the prosecutors in the case for dragging their feet, something that could be rectified if they interviewed Assange in London.

Sweden's recent decision to question Assange at the embassy over some fine Ecuadorian ceviche was welcomed by Assange, his Ecuadorian hosts and no doubt the British, who have long ago tired of footing the policing bill (estimated at £10 million so far) for what looks very much like a politically inspired witch hunt.

In fact last Friday, Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility when welcoming the news announced that:

The Government of Ecuador has repeatedly made this offer [to interview in London] since 2012, when it granted asylum to Mr. Assange.

It is a great injustice that Mr. Assange due to the Prosecutors' failure to fulfill their duty, has been deprived of freedom without charge in the United Kingdom, and confined in our embassy for almost a thousand days. This amounts to a violation of his human rights, at great personal cost to him and his family.

You don't say?

According to press releases, the 180 degree turn by Swedish Director of Public Prosecutions, Marianne Ny to questioning the Australian in London is entirely due to the statute of limitations on his alleged crimes, which are set to expire this August. If he is not formally charged by then, the Swedish prosecutor will have to come up with a Plan B if she wants to keep harassing Assange.

So is the statute of limitations the reason Ms Ny is now willing to interview Assange in London? Or is it something else?

Ms Ny is on the record as claiming that in her view " to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview".

Enter Ove Bring, Professor of International Law at the Swedish National Defence College. According to Bring, "the public prosecutor's refusal to question Assange in London until now has got zip to do with the law and everything to do with her perceived 'prestige' ". He said as much two and a half years ago in a Swedish blog, Friatider.se but its relevance today is undiluted.

So far Sweden's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been unable to rebut Prof Bring who has caught Ny out several times. In the early days of the extradition shenanigans against Assange, Marianne Ny claimed that British as well as Swedish law prohibited her from questioning Assange anywhere but in Sweden. Not in person and not by video. She stated as much on 20 November 2010.

But according to Bring she was not honest.

Two weeks later in early December, Bring recalls that she told TIME Magazine the very same thing. By now Brings expected her economy with the truth.

Two months later, Ms. Ny suddenly did a 180. In London, in early February 2011, she admitted that it was possible for her if she so choose to interview Assange in London (in cooperation with the good offices of London's Metropolitan Police Service). She just didn't choose to.

Well what do you know? She could even engage him in telephone conference or a videoconference if she wanted. Amazing.

All three avenues for questioning a witness or a suspect are provided for within the framework of a system for legal co-operation amongst nations called Mutual Legal Assistance.

It's worth noting that while the UK Home Office accedes in most cases to MLA requests, it has wide discretion. Should it conclude for instance that Sweden is engaged in a politically motivated investigation or prosecution, then the UK could refuse Sweden's request.

Also if the UK concludes that "there are substantial grounds for believing that the Swedish request has been made for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his/her political opinions", then the request could [also] be refused.

Ms.Ny has often argued against interviewing Assange in London, but as Prof Bring makes clear, she never outlined her reasoning. As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad.

In fact, while Ms Ny was busy issuing a European Arrest Warrant for Assange in late 2010, Swedish police flew to Serbia to question a known criminal, in tandem with the Serbian police.

How 'bout that?

Clearly there's something very rotten in what passes for Sweden's judicial system.

The putrid stench coming from Ernst Fontells plats is hands down out-stinking the aroma of Surströmming, one-year old decayed herring, arguably one of the world's most disgusting foods and regarded as a delicacy amongst the Vikings.

And that's quite something.