1. The burden of proof primarily targets fairness in protecting the defendant, but this may reduce equality between the parties. A presumption of automatic liability that needed to be disproved would be unfair for the defendant, because they wouldn’t know the evidence to defend themselves against. Instead, the plaintiff making the allegations must be prepared to explain what they are and prove their legitimacy before the defendant needs to prove any defence. This means, however, that the party that has already been injured bears the burden of starting the trial and leading all of the evidence first. This takes two private parties who should in theory be equal, and makes them unequal by giving the defendant an advantage over the plaintiff.
2. The burden of proof protects the defendant, but the cost is that it reduces access for the plaintiff. The plaintiff making the allegations must be prepared to explain what they are and prove their legitimacy before the defendant needs to prove any defence, but this means that the party that has already been injured bears the burden of starting the trial and leading all of the evidence first. If the plaintiff, already harmed, cannot afford a lawsuit and cannot research enough evidence to discharge the burden of proof, they cannot access justice or redress. This takes two private parties who should in theory have equal access to the system, and makes their access unequal by giving the defendant an advantage over the plaintiff. The plaintiff has access by being allowed to put their evidence and claims first, but this benefit is outweighed by the difficulty.