Key Evidence Barred
NSW Judge Excludes Improperly Obtained ChatRoulette Video from Nurses' Trial
Anonymous
Key Points
1
The judge highlighted that the video had 'much wider publicity by legacy media, particularly in Australia' after Max Veifer (Max Ilinsky) published it, influencing the evidentiary assessment.
2
The footage was recorded by Max Veifer (Max Ilinsky) and then posted to his social media profile, which has more than 100,000 followers, amplifying its reach before the court case.
3
Crown prosecutors argued the chat did not carry a strong expectation of privacy due to its random nature on ChatRoulette, a point the judge weighed under NSW privacy law in the desirability-vs-undesirability test.
4
The decision emphasized that the onus of proving improper obtainment lay with the defence; if improper obtainment were proven, the onus would shift to the Crown to determine admissibility of the evidence.
A NSW District Court judge has thrown out the key video evidence in the case against two former Sydney nurses accused of making threats toward Israeli patients. Judge Michael McHugh ruled on June 23, 2026 that the 2.5-minute footage — recorded by Israeli influencer Max Veifer during a February 2025 ChatRoulette session — was improperly obtained and must be excluded from the upcoming trial, according to Nine.
Ahmed Rashad Nadir, 28, and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, 27, both formerly of Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, face charges of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. Abu Lebdeh also faces a charge of threatening violence against a group. Both have pleaded not guilty. Their trial is now set to begin August 31, 2026 — without the viral footage that sparked the case, The Jerusalem Post reported.
Judge Finds Viral Recording Broke NSW Privacy Law
The ruling turns on the NSW Surveillance Devices Act 2007, which bans recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties. The court had to decide whether a random ChatRoulette encounter counts as a "private conversation." Judge McHugh found it did. The nurses were inside a workplace, not broadcasting to a public forum, Australian Jewish News reported.
The judge then applied what lawyers call the "desirability test" under Section 138 of the Evidence Act. That test asks whether the benefit of using the evidence outweighs the harm of how it was gathered. McHugh ruled it did not. He acknowledged the alleged comments were "on their face at the very least likely highly disturbing to right-minded people" — but still excluded the footage, according to Nine.
Wide Media Coverage Helped Sink the Evidence
A key factor in the ruling was how far the video had already spread. Veifer posted the footage to his social media profile, which has more than 100,000 followers. Australian legacy media then amplified it further, sparking a national debate. The judge cited this broad prior publication as a reason supporting exclusion, Head Topics reported.
Defense barrister Greg James KC described Veifer as running a "private vigilante activity" and called him an "online propaganda warrior" who "doesn't care what legal regime may prevail to obtain the recordings." Veifer admitted in court that his recordings had caused up to five people globally to lose their jobs, according to Nine.
Crown Argued Random Chats Carry No Privacy Shield
Crown Prosecutor Justin Hannebery KC pushed back hard. He argued that "not all private conversations are created equal" and that users of a random video-chat service "could not have the same expectation of privacy as people speaking privately with friends." The platform's random-pairing design, he said, strips away any reasonable privacy claim, The Jerusalem Post reported.
Veifer told the court his goal was to "get it to the authorities so they could review it and decide." He also admitted to using a VPN to disguise his location during the chat. The judge weighed all of this under the desirability test, placing the initial burden on the defense to prove improper obtainment — a burden the defense met, per Australian Jewish News.
Prosecution Must Now Build Case Without Its Strongest Proof
Without the video, the Crown must prove its case using witness testimony or digital logs. That is a significantly harder task when the alleged threats were spoken aloud and captured on screen. Legal analysts say the ruling sets a tough precedent for cases built on influencer-recorded footage, Head Topics noted.
The professional consequences for both nurses are already severe, regardless of the criminal outcome. NSW Health fired them shortly after the video surfaced in February 2025. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia then handed down a two-year nationwide suspension. Their ability to practice medicine in Australia again is considered highly unlikely, The Jerusalem Post reported.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
12
Articles
28
Reach
40
A
AnonymousAuthor
