Some more points that might be of interest. Most of this is from an excellent source (you have met the person, michi, though I'm not sure you've talked).
The Swedish prosecutor might push for an extradition, instead of a simple interrogation on British soil, for several reasons.
One is that Assange during the interrogation will be given information that in some way indict him, and where Assange might be able to work out the source of that information. In such a case, the Swedish investigator might have to arrest him during the interrogation in order to stop Assange from influencing the source. (In Swedish legal proceedings, what is said during police interrogations is of strict secondary value compared to what is said in Court.)
Another one is that there are legal and administrative quirks in the intersection between British and Swedish law that makes it hard for Swedish authorities to perform an interrogation of a suspect on British soil. With EU, this has become simpler, but Assange is an Australian citizen, which might complicate things. Assange is also a suspect of a serious crime, which makes this less viable.
One minor clarification: Swedish prosecutors do not have to defend their calls to a judge. Instead, there are higher levels of prosecutor up to the national prosecutor ("riksåklagaren") who check the decisions. In this case, Marianne Ny is the deputy superior prosecutor in the national Swedish center for the investigation of crimes within the family, rape, sexual abuse, and similar. Ie, from a Swedish standpoint, you might go up a level in formality (to the national prosecutor) but it'd be a major step down in actual knowledge on how to investigate a case like this.
However, there are certain decisions that a prosecutor has to present to a court, and there are corresponding decisions in Assange's case in both a lower court and a courts of appeal of Sweden for a pre-trial detention.
no subject
The Swedish prosecutor might push for an extradition, instead of a simple interrogation on British soil, for several reasons.
One is that Assange during the interrogation will be given information that in some way indict him, and where Assange might be able to work out the source of that information. In such a case, the Swedish investigator might have to arrest him during the interrogation in order to stop Assange from influencing the source. (In Swedish legal proceedings, what is said during police interrogations is of strict secondary value compared to what is said in Court.)
Another one is that there are legal and administrative quirks in the intersection between British and Swedish law that makes it hard for Swedish authorities to perform an interrogation of a suspect on British soil. With EU, this has become simpler, but Assange is an Australian citizen, which might complicate things. Assange is also a suspect of a serious crime, which makes this less viable.
One minor clarification: Swedish prosecutors do not have to defend their calls to a judge. Instead, there are higher levels of prosecutor up to the national prosecutor ("riksåklagaren") who check the decisions. In this case, Marianne Ny is the deputy superior prosecutor in the national Swedish center for the investigation of crimes within the family, rape, sexual abuse, and similar. Ie, from a Swedish standpoint, you might go up a level in formality (to the national prosecutor) but it'd be a major step down in actual knowledge on how to investigate a case like this.
However, there are certain decisions that a prosecutor has to present to a court, and there are corresponding decisions in Assange's case in both a lower court and a courts of appeal of Sweden for a pre-trial detention.