R. v. Doodnaught, 2014 ONCA 172:
 The public interest component is about the public perception of the reputation of the administration of justice. This is based on the view of a public that is reasonably informed of the criminal process and the circumstances of the case. It requires that I assess the need to review the conviction leading to imprisonment on the one hand, and the need to respect the general rule of immediate enforceability of judgments on the other: Manasseri, at paras. 40-43. This is commonly referred to in the jurisprudence as “reviewability versus enforcement”.
 Public confidence in the administration of justice requires that judgments be enforced, and ordinarily requires that a person convicted of a very serious offence, who advances grounds of appeal that are arguable but weak, be denied release pending appeal. However, public confidence in the administration of justice also requires that judgments be reviewed and that any errors be corrected, especially where an appellant’s liberty is at stake – in these circumstances justice usually requires release from custody pending the review: R. v. Farinacci (1993), 86 C.C.C. (3d) 32 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 47-48.
 Release may be especially appropriate where the hearing of the appeal "will be so long delayed and the probability of the success in the appeal so strong that it will be contrary to the public interest to refuse a release and a fortiori an applicant's detention would not be necessary in the public interest": R. v. Baltovich (2000), 144 C.C.C. (3d) 233 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 41, quoting R. v. Baltovich (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 737 at 740.
 The public interest component assumes greater prominence in cases in which the applicant has been convicted of a very serious offence and faces the prospect of a lengthy period of incarceration: Baltovich (2000), at para. 19. This is such a case.