Judge refuses police union push to overturn Adelaide Oval beer can deal

Beer can “missiles” are extremely rare and not a reason to overrule a deal between SAPOL and the Adelaide Oval, a judge has ruled.

The state’s police union has lost a legal challenge to try and stop beer and other alcohol being sold in cans at Adelaide Oval.

Liquor Licencing Court Judge Brian Gilchrist has rejected an application by the Police Association to review a variation to Adelaide Oval’s liquor licence that has allowed the move, stating the appeal was unlikely to succeed.

The union lodged the application in August, citing public safety grounds, after SAPOL and the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority struck a deal to ensure the variation proceeded.

Police Association of SA president Mark Carroll. Picture: Brenton Edwards

Senior police initially opposed the licence variation on public safety grounds, but withdrew their opposition after minor concessions, including that warning signs about the dangers of throwing cans, were agreed.

The police union fears alcohol in cans will be used as missiles by drunk spectators and injure either police officers, other fans or players on the field.

Police Association president Mark Carroll said the union was disappointed at the decision and did not resile from its position on the issue.

“We’ve been consistent on this issue from day one,’’ he said.

“It’s a change to the status quo, sadly, that threatens to have dire consequences down the track – for both police officers and the general public.

“If an ugly incident happens and someone is hurt, it will be on these parties to offer an explanation.”

In refusing permission to appeal the decision, Judge Brian Gilchrist said the Liquor Commissioner “was entitled to be satisfied that historically the use of aluminium cans as projectiles at Adelaide Oval was extremely rare.’’

Spectators in the crowd enjoy the atmosphere during day three of the Second Test match in the Ashes series between Australia and England at the Adelaide Oval on December. Picture: Quinn Rooney

“He was entitled to give considerable weight to the fact that he was being asked to endorse a proposal agreed upon by two entities with considerable gravitas who could be expected to have a mutual commitment to maintain Adelaide Oval as a safe venue,’’ he stated.

“He was entitled to rely upon the fact that a trial use of cans at the MCG was well received and did not indicate a relationship between the use of cans and alcohol related incidents at that venue.

“There is no reason to assume that the Liquor Commissioner did other than independently satisfy himself that it was appropriate to make the order that is the subject of the review. “Based on the evidence placed before this Court, there is every reason to suggest that this Court, if it conducted a review, would come to the same conclusion.’’