Excluding Hindley St venues from liquor laws would bring "moths to a flame," court told Two Hindley St clubs are seeking exemption from new codes of conduct. EXCLUDING two of Hindley St's largest nightclubs from the 3am liquor lockout laws will draw patrons to those venues "like moths to a flame," a court has heard. The Palace Gallery and the Woolshed on Hindley this morning asked the Supreme Court to grant an urgent injunction exempting them from the new liquor code of conduct , which comes into force on Tuesday. The venues stand to lose millions of dollars in revenue under the code, the centrepiece of which is a lockout preventing revellers from entering pubs and clubs after 3am. The code was proposed by the State Government as a way to curb alcohol-related violence and applies to all venues, except restaurants and the Adelaide Casino. Today, Justice David Peek told counsel for the venues and Solicitor-General Martin Hinton, SC, that the best remedy for the dispute was a speedy hearing before the Full Court of the Supreme Court. He said Chief Justice Kourakis had informed him a Full Court could be convened in the week commencing October 8, provided the parties worked together to narrow the argument so it could be heard promptly. Justice Peek said that, without a speedy hearing, the matter could degenerate into a long-running series of appeals and cross-appeals that would be expensive and time-consuming for all involved. He said that, should the parties agree, the only matter to be determined at short notice would be whether the venues should receive temporary exemption from the code until the appeal had been determined. Dick Whitington, QC, for the venues, said his clients "embraced" the idea of a speedy hearing. He said that, in the interim, the government "should be prepared to agree" his clients could continue trading under the old code until the Full Court handed down its judgment. Mr Hinton said it would - but only to a point. "I can give an undertaking, on behalf of the Crown, that between now and judgment we would not institute proceedings for prosecution (against the venues)," he said. Beyond that, the Crown would not give any undertaking. Justice Peek sought clarification of his position. "Do I understand that to mean that, if the Full Court ruled the code or any part of it to be valid, and in the interim the venues have breached those clauses of the code, some time after the judgment of the Full Court there might me a prosecution resulting from that breach?" he asked. Mr Hinton said there "might be." "If the breach related to clauses about CCTV, there's room to move - but there's no room to move on the 3am lockout clause," he said. Because of the consequences for others, there would be no moving on that clause. Exempting these venues would result in driving patrons from other premises to the premises of the plaintiffs, (so) there would be a large concentration of people in these areas and, therefore, problems. It would be moths to a flame, Your Honour. Mr Whitington said the code already exempted restaurants and the casino, meaning the "moths would not be off the streets anyway." Justice Peek asked the parties to discuss the issue between themselves and return to court in 45 minutes.