19 The lie, if it was found to have been such, was not one which was advanced by the prosecution as reflecting a consciousness of guilt. Indeed, during the trial the prosecutor expressly disclaimed any such reliance and said that it should be left to the jury (as it subsequently was, by the trial Judge) only as a matter reflecting upon the appellant's credibility. In my opinion, while the lie, if found to be so, had some value in that respect, that value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence which tended to establish it. As E M Heenan J has said, the value of the evidence concerning KLOM, insofar as it tended to establish the lie, was lessened by the fact, recognised by the trial Judge, that a drunken inquiry (and that is all it ever was) about the possibility of having sex with a young girl, while no doubt inconsistent with a state of impotence, does not, of itself, go so far as to establish that the appellant was not, in fact, impotent. On the other hand, the evidence of and concerning KLOM was undoubtedly evidence of a highly prejudicial kind which, as I have said, showed a propensity, on the part of the appellant, to engage in discreditable conduct of a sexual kind with young girls. Its prejudicial effect (of a kind which, it seems to me, could not adequately be obviated by any directions to a jury) was such as, by far, to have outweighed its probative value and, in circumstances in which the prosecution disclaimed any reliance upon the alleged lie as reflecting a consciousness of guilt and in which the appellant was prepared to edit out of the videotape any reference to his impotence and to undertake not to raise any claim of impotence in support of his defence, it should, in my opinion, have been excluded: see Sutton v The Queen [1984] HCA 5; (1984) 152 CLR 528 at 534, per Gibbs CJ, and 565, per Dawson J. I should add that, in my respectful opinion, any such editing of the videotape could have been achieved without distorting the balance of the appellant's interview, the principal importance of which, from the prosecution's perspective, was presumably the admission, by the appellant, that he may have been in the bathroom when NMS was there.