Israeli content creator recorded Sydney nurses in online chat

An Israeli content creator involved in an online video chat where two Sydney nurses allegedly threatened Israeli patients has told a court he recorded his chats for his own protection and published their conversation because he was "really worried about their statements".

Ahmad Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh have pleaded not guilty after being charged following the conversation with Max Veifer on the cam chat app Chatruletka in February last year while they were working at Bankstown Hospital.

Both former nurses deny the charge of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend, while Ms Abu Lebdeh has denied an additional charge of threatening violence to a group.

In a video of the chat, which was recorded by Mr Veifer and uploaded to social media, the pair allegedly bragged about refusing to treat Israeli patients, killing them and saying they would go to hell.

Ahead of a trial in the NSW District Court, defence lawyers are arguing the video was obtained illegally due to a NSW law which prohibits the recording of private conversations without participants' consent.

Veifer wanted to 'warn our people'

Mr Veifer told Sydney's Downing Centre on Monday that he would converse with 30 to 40 people during a session on the app, on which he would at times encounter "Israeli haters" and speak to them about their opinions.

While he would record the sessions for "protection … especially as an Israeli", he would not always publish them on social media, he said.

Giving evidence via audio-visual link from Israel, Mr Veifer said he posted this video because he wanted to "warn our people".

Under cross-examination by Mr Nadir's counsel, Greg James KC, the content creator denied his intention was to get the nurses fired by encouraging his followers to share the video.

Mr Veifer said there had been previous instances of people being fired in relation to his videos, estimating there were five or fewer occasions.

When asked about whether he had checked the legality of publishing screen recordings of Chatruletka conversations, Mr Veifer said he was "not a lawyer" but had previously Googled the topic and saw people saying different things.

"I'm just a content creator and I see a lot of people creating content with this chat," he said.

The judge heard Mr Veifer described himself to police as an "unofficial advocacy activist", who made some money off YouTube views but also sold subscriptions for English and Hebrew language lessons.

He had previously used a VPN to fake his location as being in Canada when he was actually in Israel, the court heard, and the purpose of his videos was sometimes merely entertainment.

The influencer said he didn't consider Chatrouletka interactions to be "full private" in the way a WhatsApp conversation would be, and denied drawing that distinction due to an awareness of the potential legal significance.

"I've seen videos of people online talking with other people with Chatrouletka, this app has been around for many years, so I know it's not private and anything can happen," he said.

Interaction raises numerous complex issues

Separate to the issue of whether the interaction was a public or private conversation, the case has also raised complex questions about where the conversation, the recording, and the publication of the video took place — and the flow-on effects for how the law applies.

Mr James told the judge that he would argue the recording took place in NSW because that was where the sound came from and, alternatively, it was either sufficiently linked to NSW or there was an effect in NSW.

The Crown argues a conversation on the app could not be categorised as private, highlighting that it took place on a platform where "complete strangers" are connected over the internet for a "random conversation".

Justin Hannebery KC, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, said there could be no doubt Mr Veifer used his computer and his phone to record the conversation, but neither of those things were done in NSW.

"At no stage has he used any device in New South Wales."

At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Michael McHugh said he had read written submissions from all parties and described the case as "a very interesting matter".

"For the lawyers. Not so much for the other people," he said.

"There's some real legal questions here."

The case has been adjourned until Thursday.