The First Respondent (Hackney) is a local housing authority with statutory functions in relation to the allocation of social housing. In addition to allocating its own housing stock, it also nominates applicants to properties owned by housing associations. The Second Respondent (AIHA) is such an association. AIHA will only accept nominations to its social housing of households belonging to the Orthodox Jewish community. Hackney identified the First Appellant (Z), who is not a member of the Orthodox Jewish community, as having the highest level of housing need in the borough due to the vulnerability of her children (one of whom, RS, is the Second Appellant). In October 2017, Hackney agreed to make Z a "direct offer" of the next available and suitable unit of permanent social housing. However, suitable housing was not provided until February 2019. Between October 2017 and February 2019, AIHA allocated various properties to members of the Orthodox Jewish community. The Appellants did not apply for, and Hackney did not nominate them for, any of those properties because of AIHA’s policy of only letting to Orthodox Jewish households.
The Appellants sought to challenge AIHA’s allocation policy and Hackney’s allocation arrangements with AIHA by means of an application for judicial review. The Divisional Court refused the application and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

The appellant operates a poultry slaughterhouse under the approval of the Food Standards Agency. The birds have their legs shackled to a moving line and are then submitted to a number of sequential processes, including stunning, bleeding and scalding.
On 31 August, 12 September and 5 October 2016, a chicken went into the scalding tank whilst still alive because its neck was not properly cut by a certificated operative.
The appellant was charged with two offences in respect of each incident, contrary to Regulation 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015.
The appellant raised two preliminary points of law: (1) whether the Regulation required proof of mens rea in the appellant, i.e. knowledge of the factual circumstances constituting the offence; and (2) whether the prosecution must prove a culpable act or omission on the part of the appellant.
On 9 January 2018, a District Judge ruled that the offences did not require proof of mens rea, and that consequently there was no need to prove culpability on the part of the appellant. On 16 November 2018, the Divisional Court dismissed a judicial review of that decision.