Equitable principles warrant relief in this case to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice, and the manifestly unconscionable retention of the judgment against motorists. To allow a finding of responsible to stand for that which is “not illegal” would be against the notion of judicial fairness, and would offend the ethical conscience of not only the Court, but our society as a whole. Petition of Sharpe, quoting Commonwealth v. Andler (“To permit a sentence to stand for that which is not illegal would shock the judicial conscience and result in a palpable miscarriage of justice.”).
Fraud on the court is an insult to the legal process, the failure to correct which, the court should regard as a reproach to our law. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. The Selectmen chose to play fast and loose with the Commonwealth’s motorists, and the court. “They were caught out.” The court, jealous of its integrity and concerned about deterrence, is entitled to send a message loud and clear. Such brazen misconduct merits extreme sanction. Id. To allow the court to sanction or place its imprimatur upon the actions of the Selectmen in this regard would embolden public officials to fabricate and proffer false evidence to the court. If this judgment is otherwise permitted to stand, irreparable and grave harm will come to the integrity of the judicial system.