Lead

A judge has ruled that a video recording of two former Sydney nurses, in which they allegedly made threats of violence against Israelis, must be excluded from evidence in their upcoming trial. The decision was handed down by Judge Michael McHugh at Sydney's Downing Centre district court, delivering a significant setback to the prosecution's case.

Coverage Comparison

Three news outlets covered the ruling: ABC Australia, The Guardian, and the Jerusalem Post. While all reported the core outcome—the exclusion of the video—their framing and emphasis differed slightly.

ABC Australia's report focused on the judge's decision and its implications for the trial, presenting the ruling as a straightforward application of NSW law. The Guardian's coverage emphasized the rejection of key footage and described the alleged comments as 'antisemitic', noting that the decision struck a blow to the prosecution case. The Jerusalem Post provided a neutral summary of the ruling and the defendants' pleas, highlighting that the video was thrown out by the presiding judge.

Key Claims

The video was recorded by Israeli content creator Max Veifer, also known as Max Ilinsky, on the cam chat app ChatRoulette (referred to as Chatruketka in Israel), which randomly matches strangers worldwide. The nurses, Ahmed Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, were matched with Veifer in 2025 while working at Bankstown Hospital in southwest Sydney.

Both former nurses have pleaded not guilty to using a carriage service to menace, harass, or offend. Abu Lebdeh faces an additional charge of threatening violence to a group. They are due to face trial at the end of August.

The defence argued that the recording was taken without their consent, breaching NSW laws that prohibit recording private conversations without permission. Nadir's barrister, Greg James KC, previously described Veifer's actions as 'private vigilante activity', claiming Veifer did not care about the legal regime under which the recordings were obtained.

Judge McHugh ruled that evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law cannot be admitted unless the desirability of doing so outweighs the undesirability. In his decision, he also considered whether the chat service participants were in a 'private conversation' for the purposes of NSW law.

One reason for the exclusion was the broad publication of the material online and in the media. The judge noted that the alleged utterances were 'at the very least likely highly disturbing to right-minded people'.

The prosecution, represented by Crown Prosecutor Justin Hannebery KC, had argued that the online chat did not carry the same expectations of privacy due to the random nature of the connection between the nurses and Veifer.

Perspectives

Defence

Lawyers for the nurses welcomed the ruling. Abu Lebdeh's lawyer, Rayan Kadadi, said outside court: "I don't think there was any evidence to charge my client, who ultimately lost her job and has gone through severe hardship." Abu Lebdeh expressed gratitude for the ruling.

Prosecution

Crown Prosecutor Justin Hannebery KC had previously argued that the nature of the random online connection meant the conversation did not have the same privacy expectations, implying the video should be admissible. The prosecution's position was not represented in the reports following the ruling.

Judiciary

Judge Michael McHugh ruled that all video evidence must be excluded from the trials, stating: "Ultimately, I have come to the firm view that all the video evidence must be excluded from each of the trials of the applicants." He based his decision on the improper obtaining of evidence and the wide dissemination of the material.