A legal representative for one of the two Sydney nurses facing allegations of making antisemitic threats during an online video chat has characterized their remarks as “foolish comments made by foolish individuals.” This statement was made in light of ongoing discussions in court regarding the video recording of the conversation, which the defense claims was unlawfully captured by an Israeli content creator.
Judge Michael McHugh is set to rule on the admissibility of the video on June 23.
The incident in question involved a video chat between the Israeli content creator, Max Veifer, and the two nurses, Ahmed Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, which took place in February 2025 on the chat platform Chatruletka. During this recorded session, it is alleged that the nurses expressed their refusal to treat Israeli patients and made threats against them.
Both former employees of Bankstown Hospital have pleaded not guilty to a charge of using a communication service to menace, harass, or offend. Additionally, Ms. Abu Lebdeh has denied a separate charge related to threatening violence against a group.
As the trial approaches in August, the defense teams have contended that the video in question was acquired without legal consent, violating New South Wales law, which prohibits the recording of private conversations without permission. Greg James KC, counsel for Mr. Nadir, argued in Sydney’s Downing Centre District Court that Mr. Veifer’s recording was illegal as it involved a private conversation held in New South Wales.
“The location of the device doesn’t matter; what matters is that it recorded a private conversation occurring within the state,” he stated.
Mr. Veifer provided testimony via video link from Israel, asserting that he routinely records his Chatruletka sessions for his own safety. However, Mr. James contended that this rationale does not justify the recording under the relevant surveillance laws. He emphasized that Mr. Veifer was intentionally engaging individuals with opposing viewpoints, aiming to document and share the exchanges with his audience rather than merely protecting himself.
“He is essentially engaging in vigilante activity,” Mr. James claimed. “He is not merely protecting himself; he is exploiting the opinions he elicits.”
The defense further argued that the video was obtained through deceptive means, in violation of the platform’s terms of service and local regulations, asserting that Mr. Veifer could not reasonably interpret the nurses’ comments as an actual confession. “These were clearly foolish remarks made by foolish individuals,” he reiterated.
Justin Hannebery KC, representing the prosecution, asserted that even if the conversation was considered private, “not all private conversations hold the same weight,” and the expectation of privacy can vary depending on the context. He noted that Chatruletka connects “complete strangers” rather than fostering close personal relationships.
Mr. Hannebery also suggested that using a listening device in another country solely for connecting on a random chat site might extend the interpretation of New South Wales law too far. He likened it to claiming, “I used the microphone Mick Jagger is using if I go to a Rolling Stones concert.”
He informed the judge that should Mr. Veifer be required to testify during the trial, arrangements are being made for him to travel from Israel to provide his evidence in person. However, this matter will be deferred until the court has made its ruling on the video’s legality.
Outside the courtroom, Mr. Nadir’s attorney, Zemarai Khatiz, mentioned that if the video were excluded from the case, it would represent “a significant setback for the prosecution.” Meanwhile, Ms. Abu Lebdeh’s lawyer, Rayan Kadadi, highlighted the critical nature of the court’s decision regarding whether the video was unlawfully obtained.
