General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Defending Assange against sexual assault allegations [View all]msanthrope
(37,549 posts)If I'm reading the decision correctly and I believe that I am... Interview in this context is not an interview that we would talk about in a common law system. It is not merely police inquiry.
Interview in this context is incident to arrest... In other words if it's gone this far in the process in Sweden you are getting arrested. Take a look at the part in the decision with the judge speaks of Mr Hurtig's testimony that he advised Assange that the scheduled interview would involve a blood test and arrest.
In America I would never advise a client to go to an interview with the police.... either they have enough to arrest you or they don't. The process that's been described to me both in Swedish newspapers and in this decision indicates that the interview is more like surrendering yourself for arrest than police inquiry.
I think once Assange's lawyer explained that to him he got on a plane.
So to answer your question instead of thinking about it as an interview and then a possible arrest, it seems that in the Swedish system it is an arrest and the interview is incident to the due process of that arrest. Its not bifurcated and since they don't have the jurisdiction to arrest they don't really have the jurisdiction to interview.