Sydney nurses' alleged threats 'stupid things said by stupid people', court told

Mr Nadir and Ms Abu Lebdeh both attended court on Thursday. (ABC News: Jamie McKinnell)

A lawyer acting for one of two Sydney nurses accused of making antisemitic threats via an online video chat app has told a court their actions were "stupid things said by stupid people".

It comes as their legal teams argue a video of the conversation was illegally recorded by an Israeli content creator.

Judge Michael McHugh will deliver a decision on the video's legality on June 23.

An online video chat between an Israeli content creator and two Sydney nurses who were subsequently fired involved "stupid things said by stupid people", a court has been told.

Ahmed Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh were charged following the February 2025 conversation with Max Veifer on cam chat app Chatruletka.

In a video recording of the chat, which Mr Veifer posted to his social media, the pair allegedly said they refused to treat Israeli patients and made threats to kill them.

The former nurses at Bankstown Hospital have both pleaded not guilty to one charge of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend, while Ms Abu Lebdeh has also denied a further charge of threatening violence to a group.

Israeli content creator Max Veifer as seen in the video. (Supplied)

Ahead of a trial in August, their defence lawyers have argued the video was unlawfully obtained, breaking a NSW law that prohibits the recording of a private conversation without consent.

Mr Nadir's counsel, Greg James KC, on Thursday told Sydney's Downing Centre District Court that Mr Veifer had illegally recorded a private conversation between the three people.

He argued that because the sound of the conversation was captured in NSW with a microphone in the state, it breached a NSW law concerning surveillance devices.

Mr Veifer gave evidence on Monday via video link from Israel, telling the court he would always record Chatruletka sessions for his own "protection".

But Mr James said that reasoning did not fit within a carve-out of surveillance device law which provides for some lawful justifications.

He said the influencer was intentionally seeking out people with views opposing his own on Chatruletka, hoping to record and upload the conversations to his followers.

"This man is running, in effect, vigilante activity," he said.

"He's seeking to draw out the opinions. Having succeeded in drawing them out, he's not protecting himself from them, he's capitalising on them."

The barrister argued the video was protected by Chatrouletka's terms, obtained through deception of those terms and in breach of local