In 2010, the Singapore Court of Appeal thoroughly reviewed the doctrine of common_x000D_ intention under s 34 of the Penal Code in the landmark decision of Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan v Public Prosecutor. The present case is the first drug trafficking_x000D_ case involving this provision to reach the Court of Appeal since then. For the most_x000D_ part, Ridzuan reads like a straightforward and unremarkable case. The appellant_x000D_ Ridzuan was convicted at the High Court with his partner-in-crimeAbdul Haleem for_x000D_ trafficking in an amount of heroin large enough to attract the mandatory death penalty_x000D_ under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Abdul Haleem did not appeal his conviction because_x000D_ he had received a certificate of cooperation from the prosecution and benefited from_x000D_ the attendant discretion given to the trial judge to commute his sentence to life_x000D_ imprisonment with caning. Ridzuan, however, did not qualify for the certificate, and_x000D_ consequently filed this appeal which the Court of Appeal dismissed. The judgment_x000D_ itself contains little by way of uncertainty or controversy over the applicable law on_x000D_ common intention, as the court readily dealt with the issue by following its earlier pronouncements in Daniel Vijay. The appeal also did not turn on this issue as_x000D_ the court was thorough enough to find Ridzuan not only constructively liable for_x000D_ his complicity in Abdul Haleem's act, but also liable as a principal offender for_x000D_ satisfying the elements of the offence of trafficking. There is ultimately very little_x000D_ in the judgment to support any serious argument that the outcome for Ridzuan,_x000D_ unfortunately for him, could have been any different