I think one important thing is forgotten in all of the fuss about whether or not Assange should be questioned in Sweden by the prosecuting authorities in Sweden or at the place and time of his choosing: the key case of Smith v DPP and Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police  UKSC 666. Lest we forget in that case the accused, suspected of a series of serious crimes, had jumped bail after an earlier arrest and was hiding in a small maisonette flat in West London. He told the authorities – via email – that he did not want to attend the police station for questioning because he was worried that he might get put in jail and he wouldn’t like it. Instead he offered to answer questions in the flat by telephone or skype or in person in the flat provided he could be accompanied by his colleagues, Gripper and Slasher, and they could deal with any matters that arose if things got a bit tricky.
Although his argument was rejected in the lower courts, a strong dissent in the Court of Appeal that the suspect for a serious crime should be able to set the date, time, location, duration, manner, and nature of questions asked led to an appeal to the Supreme Court where, by a four to one majority the appeal was upheld but on slightly more limited grounds.
As a result of this crucial case it is the right of any accused person who has breached bail conditions and is located in England to tell the prosecuting authorities where, when, and how he or she should be questioned. Given this decision it is unsurprising that supporters of Julian Assange are pointing out that he should be allowed to determine where and when he is questioned in relation to the accusations against him. After all it is an absolute right of the suspect or accused in any criminal case to control the process, fought for over many long years. I am only surprised that so many lawyers south of the border and in Sweden seem oblivious to this key legal principle.