A video of two Sydney nurses allegedly making antisemitic comments to an Israeli influencer has been ruled inadmissible as evidence, delivering a significant setback to the prosecution as the pair prepare to face trial at the end of August.
Judge excludes key footage
Ahmad Nadir, 28, and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, 27, have pleaded not guilty to charges of being menacing and offensive after they allegedly stated they would refuse to treat Israeli patients and threatened violence against them. The judge, Michael McHugh, ruled on Tuesday in Sydney's Downing Centre district court that the video and any other recordings of the conversation could not be admitted as evidence.
Privacy concerns cited
“I’ve come to the firm view that the video evidence must be excluded from each of the trials of the applicants,” McHugh said. Lawyers for Nadir and Abu Lebdeh had argued that the nurses were recorded without their consent while at Bankstown Hospital in south-west Sydney, constituting an illegal invasion of privacy. McHugh also noted the widespread publication of the material online and in the media as a factor in his decision, stating that “the alleged utterances of the applicants during the chatroom interactions are on their face at the very least likely highly disturbing to right-minded people.”
Context of the recording
Max Ilinsky, an Israeli influencer known as Max Veifer, recorded the conversation on the platform ChatRoulette in 2025. The platform randomly pairs users from around the world for conversations. Nadir’s barrister, Greg James KC, previously described Veifer as running “his own private … vigilante activity,” adding that “he doesn’t care what legal regime may prevail to obtain the recordings.”
Prosecution arguments rejected
Crown prosecutor Justin Hannebery KC had argued that the random nature of the connection meant there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, stating, “Not all private conversations are created equal. It isn’t exactly [a chat] with a close personal friend where that expectation might be regarded as absolutely heightened.” He also contended that the crucial nature of the evidence in the prosecution case outweighed any concerns about how it was obtained. However, the judge’s ruling rejected these arguments.
