In a jurisdiction without a codified constitution clearly demarcating the role of the courts, and given the centrality of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty to the United Kingdom's constitutional framework, criticism of the courts for overstepping the mark – particularly in politically contentious cases – is par for the course. In their 2019 article, Professors David Campbell and James Allan offer a criticism of the Supreme Court for what they describe as its surreptitious creation of judicial supremacy at the expense of parliamentary sovereignty. In support of their claim, the authors examine two particularly significant judgments: R (Miller and another) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's Application for Judicial Review. This reply discusses several problematic aspects of the authors’ critique of those judgments, demonstrating that, contrary to the authors’ claims, these cases do not provide evidence of a surreptitious attempt by the Supreme Court to expand its power.

中文翻译：

---

小牛还是误会？回复坎贝尔和艾伦

在一个没有成文宪法的司法管辖区中，法院的职责明确界定，并且鉴于议会主权原则在联合王国宪法框架中的核心地位，因此，对于法院对商标超标的批评（尤其是在政治上有争议的案件中），批评法院是理所当然的。课程。大卫·坎贝尔（David Campbell）和詹姆斯·艾伦（James Allan）教授在其2019年的文章中对最高法院提出了批评，他们将其描述为最高法院的秘密创建，以牺牲议会主权为代价。为了支持他们的主张，提交人审查了两项特别重要的判决：R（Miller和另一项）诉退出欧洲联盟的国务卿和北爱尔兰人权委员会关于司法复审的申请。该答复讨论了提交人对这些判决的批评的几个有问题的方面，表明与提交人的主张相反，这些案件没有提供证据证明最高法院是在暗中企图扩大其权力。