burden-of-proof
Is there any precedent wherein both parties require a burden of proof?
<p>My thinking is with respect to very serious issues wherein getting the correct resolution is very important.  Usually the burden seems to be on one party or another, but I wonder if there are cases or situations where both parties are burdened with justifying their positions?</p>

<p><strong>Are there cases or situations where both parties are burdened with justifying their positions?</strong></p>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag">england-and-wales</a></p>
<p>Yes, but different standards are applied.</p>
<p>One example is the &quot;reverse burden of proof&quot; placed on the defendant in <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/14/section/1?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 1(1)</a> of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, <strong>the proof whereof shall lie on him</strong>, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The prosecution have to prove &quot;beyond a reasonable doubt&quot; that the article is actually an offensive weapon and that the named defendant possessed it on a particular date and that s/he was in a public place at the time.</p>
<p>Whereas the standard of proof for the defendant to show they had lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for having  is the, lower, &quot;balance of probabilities&quot;.</p>
<p>Similar legislation, for a similar offence, at <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 139</a> of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(4)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section <strong>to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article</strong> with him in a public place.</p>
<p>(5)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—</p>
<ul>
<li><p>(a)for use at work;</p>
</li>
<li><p>(b)for religious reasons; or</p>
</li>
<li><p>(c)as part of any national costume.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>Which, again, is on the balance of probabilities. See, for example, <a href="https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1ee2c94e0775e7ee5a7?locale=en_UK" rel="nofollow noreferrer">R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If [a legal burden of proof on an accused] is created the matter in question must be taken as proved against the accused unless he satisfies the jury on a balance of probabilities to the contrary...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Generally speaking, the ultimate burden of proof is placed upon one party or another. But sometimes there is what is called a &quot;burden of production&quot; that involves some evidentiary showing that an issue is present before the burden of proof is implicated.</p>
<p>For example, no evidence needs to be presented regarding self-defense in a criminal case until the defense meets a burden of production to show that self-defense is an issue presented in a case, even if the ultimate burden of proof once the burden of production is satisfied and the issue goes to a jury is on the prosecution.</p>
