Also the type of rape in this case and the Roman Polanski case aren't even remotely similar. In the UK, USA, or most other Western countries what he did isn't even illegal.
It is essentially the sex version of fraud: lying to get ahead.
Also, the crusader for freedom has fled to a regime that is demonstrably un-free.
Paragraph 86:
"..The allegation is clear and covers the alternatives; it not an allegation that the condom came off accidentally or was damaged accidentally. It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act."
The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK.
"His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act"
The boss of the original prosecutor (Eva Finné) reduced the suspicion from rape to "ofredande" (not sure how to translate that but it is a very minor crime which almost never results in jail, it is not a sex offense either). Then a third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) joined and brought the suspicion up to rape again since she want to have it tried in court of this is rape or not.
So really this seems to me like Marianne Ny just wants to use this case to determine how Swedish law works in cases like this.