It is relevant, because people are implying the case is much much less further along than it actually is. It is the opinion of the English courts (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) 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". So the case is far enough along that he would be charged (were this England).
He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.
Comments
It is relevant, because people are implying the case is much much less further along than it actually is. It is the opinion of the English courts (§153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) 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". So the case is far enough along that he would be charged (were this England).
He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.