The issue in this question concerns the effect of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) on the previous English sentencing system in relation to one of the objectives of punishment, namely retribution. It is the duty of the courts to apply section 142(1) of the CJA 2003. The section requires that the courts have considered the objectives in imposing punishment on offenders who now play a minor role in carrying out punishment. And how profound these changes have been. I will briefly discuss (a) historical context of the CJA 2003, (b) identify who is the successor to the CJA, (c) recognize the difference in principle between the CJA and its successor, i.e. principles, objectives and priorities, (d) how implement today's sentencing objectives for offenders, victims and communities, (e) and clarify what type of objectives the court is actually relying on when deciding the appropriate sentence for adult offenders as opposed to imprisonment and community. Agree or disagree with the statement. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SENTENCE POLICY Before 1991, there was no statutory provision or general regulatory framework including sentencing objectives on which courts should rely. This left the courts to decide for themselves, based on the facts of the case, what the best sentence is for the offender. However, by granting unlimited power to the court in setting the sentence, this has caused uncertainty on what basis the courts have reached such a sentence. Therefore, in 1991, the CJA was established in order to have a systematic approach to achieving punitive objectives. The main provisions of the 1991 Act were dominated by retributive theories centered on the fact that sentences must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. However, some parts of the legislation reflect middle-of-the-paper utilitarian theories… they somehow give a sense of security and protection under the law. By having additional objectives in the sentence, it will somehow bring a balance between punishing the offender for the crime committed and harmonization in the community. It therefore appears that retribution has become the second element in the objectives of sentencing, but in reality retribution has been implemented in the sentencing guidance, particularly in the concept of crime severity. The main difference between the 1991 and 2003 CJA is the creation of the SGC to monitor sentencing guidelines and this body had an impact on the sentencer in setting the sentence and also on the objectives of the sentence. It can therefore be stated with certainty that the retributive principle still plays a role in the purposes of sentencing. It may not seem to play the major role as mentioned in the quote, but the foundation of the CJA 2003 was built on that theory.