Fact: He is accused of rape. That is a serious offence.
(It has also been used as an instrument of torture, but that's not important right now.)
Fact: Under Swedish law the accused has to be interviewed face to face and charged at interview.
Fact: He ran away before they could do that, and they did not block him from boarding because they believed that he wouldn't run away and so didn't apply for a travel ban.
Fact: That interview is what the Swedes want. They think there is a reasonable chance that after interviewing him they will want to charge him. Their law requires him to be present to argue his case.
That's actually very similar to here.
In the UK, you're arrested "on suspicion" and interviewed, perhaps "under caution".
You may then be released to go back to your daily business. Often are, in fact.
Later on they may ask you to come back in for further questioning - they want to clarify something, new evidence has appeared or similar.
At that later interview they may decide to charge you - or decide that there's no case to answer. Or that there isn't enough evidence to charge, but they're going to keep looking.
Note that even formally dropping it doesn't mean they can't re-arrest you. If new evidence comes to light then they are bound to come knocking.
Fact: He is guilty of breaching his UK bail conditions. The sentencing guidelines are published online, and while IANAJ he ticks almost all the boxes for the maximum possible sentence which I believe is 40 weeks imprisonment.
- He is certainly fully culpable and intended to cause maximum harm, is definitely flouting the authority of the Court - and deliberately did so again yesterday.