Simester suggests the intoxication doctrine is reversed to benefit prosecution, becoming constructive liability instead of a defence.
But a criminal act that requires a defendant to intend some unlawful outcome or result that is specifically identified in the offence; is a crime of Specific Intent.
It is also worthy of note here that intoxication is not a defence in Strict Liability offences such as Drink Driving offences. So as we know; the House of Lords reversed the decision of the court of Appeal in Kingston case on the basis that an intoxicated intent is still an intent.
Yet, if the effect is anticipated but the defendant merely underestimates the strength, then the intoxication remains voluntary as noted in R v Allen  Crim LR Also in R v Kingston  3 WLRthe court noted that there was no such defense as involuntary intoxication.
He injured a number of people who were strangers to him. Their transparency and lack of knowledge shields their ability to form the necessary mens rea.
Judicial insistence upon the requirement of mens rea might remove the problem of antisocial drinking but alternatives will not develop if the courts allow these problems to be thrust upon them. But this area of criminal law has been muddled for a long time; in fact some still believe it still is.
A defendant may claim that they lacked the malice aforethought because they were so intoxicated as a result of consuming alcohol or other drugs that they did not know what they were doing.
There has been more discussion surrounding the affiliation between alcohol and diseases of the mind. The bare components of the law on intoxication are complex but the added series of exceptions that the Law Commission have proposed to introduce, in my opinion, will undermine the principle of justice in England and Wales.
His course of conduct in reducing himself by drugs and drink to that condition in my view supplies the evidence of mens rea; of guilty mind certainly sufficient for crimes of basic intent. The Law commission in a Consultation paper in recommended that Majewski be abolished; but changed its mind in the when it recommended its retention in Law Commission Report No Legislating the Criminal Code: Intoxication and Criminal Liability Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.