Why isn't Julian Assange free?

Although Westminster magistrates court overturned its decision of last week and granted Assange bail, he is still in custody after the Swedish government said it would appeal. The appeal process could take 48 hours.

Sweden will have 48 hours to appeal, and is thought to be preparing to argue that releasing Assange on bail poses an unacceptable risk that he will abscond. In the meantime, Assange will remain in custody in what his lawyer has described as "Dickensian conditions".

Why did the court change its previous decision to deny Assange bail?

Everyone in the UK is entitled to a "presumption of bail", which means they have the right to remain at liberty unless or until they have been convicted by a court. But prosecutors can deny that presumption if they show a defendant is at risk of absconding. Assange's lawyers and supporters were able to offer the judge sufficient conditions to overcome those fears. If he is freed after the appeal, his supporters will have had to have provided a security of £200,000 – which would be forfeited if he absconds – and two sureties, each of £20,000. Assange's passport has been confiscated and he would have to abide by a curfew and be subject to an electronic tag. He would have to report to a police station every evening.

Are these bail conditions common?

It is not uncommon for defendants who do not permanently reside in the UK to have to offer conditions to ensure they are allowed out on bail. Curfews and tags are often required to grant bail in serious cases, but the amounts of money involved in Assange's case are unusual. The requirement that Assange's supporters find £200,000 before he can be released is unusually onerous, indicating that the court perceives a high risk of flight.

So why has he been treated this way?

Some critics say Assange's lawyers should have been better prepared to anticipate the court's concerns at the hearing last week. Although his legal team were visibly shocked that Assange was remanded into custody last week, experienced criminal lawyers said that possibility should have been foreseen.

Many lawyers have raised eyebrows that Assange is being represented by Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson, whose expertise is in media law and human rights, rather than the specific proceedings surrounding extradition and European arrest warrants.

What happens next?

Assange will be back in court for Sweden's appeal within 48 hours. A further hearing is scheduled for 11 January, when the detail of Sweden's extradition request will be heard. The full hearing is likely to include detailed arguments that the warrant issued by Sweden is invalid. Although there has been speculation that the extradition request is politically motivated, and could facilitate Assange's onward extradition to the US on charges of espionage, the next hearing will focus on the European arrest warrant and the issues raised by Sweden's allegations of rape.

• There has been a complaint from Geoffrey Robertson about the above article. This has now been resolved.