He has not been convicted of anything, in the UK nor in Sweden, so he's not "gone through the entire legal system".

The Swedish Police officially wants him for questioning, and for that reason they requested his arrest through Interpol. The UK legal system only argued on whether there's any impediment, under British Law, which would not allow him to be extradited.

Under pressure from the current government, Lord Justices ruled that they cannot find anything of the sort. Hardly a trial or "going through the entire legal system".

"He has not been convicted of anything"

And I did not say he had. Your entire comment is based on a false premise (that I believed that he had been convicted) that you have invented.

Your entire comment is based on the false premise that he's "gone through the entire legal system". My comment proved that he has only skimmed the surface of extradition law, so he cannot have "gone through the entire legal system". If that were the case, a convicted murderer would have gone through the legal system and... something more?

But who cares, he's just a man. The problem here is the sanctity of the asylum principle, which is not worth losing over such a petty dispute.

Has he not gone through the entire legal system in the extradition case though?

Your last sentence is the important part that I think most people aren't really seeing.

To be convicted of something he'd have to go to Sweden, something he's doing his level best to prevent.

As a result the fact he's not been convicted is potentially somewhat misleading as he's made it impossible to do so up to this point.

To be convicted he'd first have to be charged; the swedes are insisting that he is only wanted for questioning and will not be charged with anything (which seems somewhat at odds with the amount of effort they're putting into this).

Why can't he be tried in absentia?

I don't know enough about Swedish law to know but I would say that I think being tried in absentia is both morally wrong and likely open to legal challenge.

And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him?

In the general case I would agree, but there needs to be a point where you can say that every effort was made and opportunity given and that the accused has actively refused to participate in the trial.

> And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him?

I can see your point here, but after some time I would think that it would become difficult to continue with the case. Witnesses get hard to track down, evidence lost, etc..