by KRISTIAN GRAVENOR

After Labour Day municipal court starts back in earnest as regular citizens sit on church-like benches waiting for their turn to act as self-styled Matlocks trying to beat low-level raps in front of sombre judges. One by one they argue the reasons they're not guilty of a cornucopia of offences ranging from illegal parking and moving violations, to tossing their garbage on the wrong day.

Challenging fines is no minor sport in this burg; in the area of parking alone, the city doles out 1.2-million tickets a year, of which 80,000 are returned with a not guilty plea. One quarter of those who scribble an excuse on the back of their ticket see their fines wiped out in the mail, another quarter pay the fine and the other 40,000 end up before judges.

Bad odds

The percentage of those who actually beat the various bylaws and the occasional minor criminal cases diverted to municipal court remains unknown. But court observers note that it's lower than one might imagine - one in-court security guard estimates that only one in five will manage to persuade a judge of their innocence.

To the naked eye, those who represent themselves in court do poorly. One local who boasts a perfect record of 10 straight victories on various driving and parking infractions - we'll call him Nathan - says defendants often offer up stunned mumbling where a coherent argument is required. "Not everyone understands that judges will not let you off the hook just because they feel sorry for you. There are never extenuating circumstances. It's a logical process, you can't just say ‘It's not fair.' You need to present the court with evidence showing that there is at least a reasonable doubt of your guilt."

Nathan says perjury can work wonders. "I've contested many times when I've clearly been guilty, but I knew they couldn't prove it categorically. Sure, it can be a little tense - bold-faced lying like that - but the prosecutors won't generally go against you very hard because personally, I don't think they really care all that much."

Bogus tax grab

The fight against minor infractions is, he feels, a legitimate exercise against legal tyranny. "Ninety per cent of the time these tickets are a scam, a public tax grab, that have very little to do with public safety," says Nathan, who sees some social subversion in the act of fighting fines. "When a cop pulls you over for only stopping one second at a stop sign, instead of the required three, on some deserted suburban street at 1 in the morning, you cannot convince me that he is acting to protect the public. It's all about generating tax revenue. You are totally fucking up the system when you contest. If everybody who got a bogus ticket went to court, there's no way they could continue getting away with it."

Nathan says he has beaten several $127 snow clearance parking transgressions by pleading that the warning signs were put up with insufficient notice. He also beat a rap for an illegal turn by pleading that the cops, who intercepted him several blocks later, simply got the wrong guy.

When to perjure

According to anecdotes, other surefire fibs that can help avert fines include citing non-existent or unclear parking signs and providing a false name and address when being written up for bylaw infractions such as jaywalking or improper bicycle reflectors.

Montreal lawyer Julius Grey warns against fibbing in court. "It is absolutely reprehensible and terrible to give false information to a court of law under oath," he says. "It's one of the basic institutions of democracy and you're undermining the whole system when you commit perjury."

Yet Grey says more are playing lawyer these days. "There has been a proliferation of people acting as their own attorneys in serious major cases as well, whether because of legal costs or because they feel that they're capable after watching enough trials on TV. Many people doing it are perfectly competent and do a very good job, others botch it totally and still others are unbalanced and are there for purposes that are difficult to understand."

Grey advises self-minted attorneys to listen to the judge. "He gives tips. You have to follow his instructions, he usually bends over backwards to help." But slick isn't enough, he says. "It's not a game or a debating society, it's the real issue that matters. You can argue brilliantly and lose or you can be very incompetent and win."

He recommends determined ticket-fighters exploit the inevitable absence of the cop or ticket-writer. "Make a motion to dismiss because the other side has no evidence."

Montreal's pricey fines

Montreal's higher-cost tickets could marginally increase the chances of people challenging them. "When it's a lot of money people are less likely to take it placidly," says Grey. Contesting parking tickets could also be more of a local sport because the fines here are also more expensive than in other comparable cities. Parking at an expired meter can cost $37, while being in a standard no-parking zone (such as a resident-parking or during street cleaning) goes for $42. In Toronto the same infractions cost $15 and $20 respectively, while Calgary will nail you for $20 and $40. Vancouver gives out just 370,000 parking tickets a year at $25 and $40, only 7,700 of which are contested in court and under 1,000 of those are dismissed.

Many Montrealers simply ignore their fines - only 78 per cent of parking recipients pay their fines within the requisite 60 days. Many of those who don't pay plead not guilty, but many of the rest simply ignore them. According to calculations made last year by city councillor Ivon Le Duc, the city has failed to collect on $80-million in unpaid tickets and is doing nothing to collect on 325,000 outstanding fines. City officials, for their part, have said they will eventually proceed with the collection from those sources.

Choose your battles

But those who actually show up to court should choose their battles and rigorously scrutinize the evidence against them, says veteran local court attorney Flavia Longo. "For example, if you're caught speeding find out whether they caught you on radar, laser or if it was a visual estimate on the part of the officer," she says. "If it's a visual estimate, then it's an opinion he got out of nowhere. That's the easiest one to win because there are no technical instruments being used by the officer to record an official speed." Machine-evidence can also be challenged. "Lots of things influence radar, such as the temperature, the type of road and whether you're driving on a hill or if there's a lot of other traffic, overpasses and other interference."

Don't write anything fancy on the back of a ticket for a moving violation when pleading not guilty, suggests Longo. "The prosecutor gets a copy of it and they're going to use whatever you wrote against you in cross-examination. If you wrote the text a year before and forgot some elements, they'll try to mess you up with that. We advise our clients just to write ‘not guilty.'"

Lying in court is "very difficult" to turn into a perjury charge, she says, yet she advises against inventing elaborate fictitious stories even if it could help beat the imminent fine, demerit points and insurance rate hikes.

"If your story is so far-fetched, the judge will know - he'll look at the evidence and say, "That's impossible". I'm sure people do that, but we tell people not to modify the facts to suit their fancy. It's just wrong."