Two former nurses from south-west Sydney accused of making death threats against Israeli patients on social media are taking their legal fight to Australia’s highest court.
Ahmad Nadir, 28, and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, 27, have both pleaded not guilty to charges of menacing and offensive conduct. They allegedly said they would not treat Israeli patients and made threats of violence against them.
Nadir’s lawyer confirmed on Friday that the pair intended to challenge the validity of the charges in the High Court of Australia.
Solicitor Zemarai Khatiz told The Australian that Abu Lebdeh’s lawyer, Rayan Kadadi, had filed a notice with the NSW District Court outlining the proposed challenge. Mr Khatiz said he was preparing a similar filing for Nadir.
“We are in the process of preparing a constitutional challenge to the High Court of Australia in Canberra relating to the validity of the charges, on the basis that they impermissibly burden the implied right of political communication,” he said.
“The High Court will determine whether the charges are constitutionally valid.
“The challenge is likely to take a substantial period of time, meaning the trial currently listed for 12 October, 2026, may be delayed until some time next year.”
The cases are being heard in the District Court, and the constitutional applications could postpone the proceedings or potentially bring the trial to an end before it begins.
Two former south-west Sydney nurses accused of threatening Israeli patients online have mounted a High Court challenge against the charges.
Sarah Abu Lebdeh (pictured) and Ahmad Nadir have pleaded not guilty to allegedly making menacing and offensive remarks, including claims they would refuse to treat Israeli patients and threaten them with violence.
Nadir’s lawyer confirmed the pair would contest the charges in the High Court of Australia. Nadir is pictured arriving at a Sydney court in March 2025.
Mr Khatiz told The Australian that the only other constitutional challenge he was aware of involving similar issues was an application brought by Man Haron Monis, the gunman responsible for the Lindt Cafe siege.
The latest legal move follows the cancellation of a scheduled five-day hearing for the former nurses. The hearing, due to begin on August 31, was vacated after expert evidence concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict was introduced unexpectedly.
The trial was rescheduled just 10 days before it was due to start and is now expected to run for two weeks from October 12, 2026.
In June, a video that allegedly showed Nadir and Abu Lebdeh making anti-Semitic comments to an Israeli influencer was excluded from the proceedings, weakening the prosecution’s case.
FIND OUT MORE: Trump Aide Natalie Harp’s Estranged Brother Reveals Family Feud and Tragedy Behind Their Rift
Judge Michael McHugh ruled that the footage, along with any other recordings of the conversation, could not be used as evidence at the forthcoming trial.
“I’ve come to the firm view that the video evidence must be excluded from each of the trials of the applicants,” he told the Downing Centre District Court in Sydney.
The nurses’ lawyers had argued that the pair were filmed without their permission while at Bankstown Hospital in south-west Sydney, which they said constituted an unlawful breach of privacy.
Judge McHugh also cited the extensive publication of the material online and in news reports as one factor in deciding to exclude the recordings from evidence.
The alleged threats were made during an online video chat on Chatruletka, with footage later shared by the other participant, Israeli influencer Max Veifer.
‘The alleged utterances of the applicants during the chat room interactions are on their face, at the very least, likely highly disturbing to right-minded people,’ he said.
Israeli national Max Ilinsky, popularly known as Max Veifer, recorded a video of his conversation with the nurses on the platform ChatRoulette in 2025.
The platform, known as Chatruletka in Israel, randomly matches people from across the world to facilitate conversations.
‘This man (Mr Veifer) is running his own private… vigilante activity,’ Mr Nadir’s barrister Greg James KC previously said.
‘He doesn’t care what legal regime may prevail to obtain the recordings.’
Crown prosecutor Justin Hannebery KC previously argued the online chat did not have the same expectations of privacy because of the random nature of the connection between the nurses and Mr Veifer.
‘Not all private conversations are created equal,’ Mr Hannebery said.
‘It isn’t exactly (a chat) with a close personal friend where that expectation might be regarded as absolutely heightened.’
The crucial nature of the evidence in the prosecution case outweighed any questions of how it was obtained, the prosecutor said.
