In R v. Atakpu, what was the central issue regarding the accused's actions?

The central issue in R v. Atakpu revolved around the question of whether the accused could be charged with possessing stolen property when the time lapse from the theft to the possession was significant, specifically in this case, after six months. The court had to consider the particulars of possession and the implications of time on the presumption of knowledge or intent regarding the stolen nature of the property.

In this case, a significant amount of time passing raises questions about whether the accused genuinely intended to possess stolen goods or if they were operating under the assumption that the items were not linked to a recent theft. The legal complexities surrounding the timeframe allowed the court to delve into notions of possession—especially concerning the necessary mens rea, or mental state, required to sustain a charge of possessing stolen property.

The other options do not align with the actual case details. The matters of theft of a car, breaking and entering, or robbery involving armed individuals are not the focal points in R v. Atakpu, hence they do not accurately reflect the core legal issues debated in this judgment. The emphasis on the time lapse and its implications on the accused's intent makes the understanding of possession, especially in relation to stolen property over time, paramount in this ruling.