Re: I think the discussion is going off of the point
"... child of 16 was prosecuted for having no TV licence ..."
I couldn't find any reference to a 16 year old in the story, where did you read about this 16 year old. The story says " ...with the youngest aged 20 ". Is this the person you were referring to? If so, you say "...for a home they clearly did not own....", the story goes on to say, "The Register's analysis was a 20-year-old woman living in a £400,000 house in Surrey " I can't think of any reason why a 20 year old couldn't own a £400,000 house. Granny died and left her a 3 bed semi. £400K doesn't buy you much in Surrey
Even if a 16 year old was prosecuted, that doesn't mean that they were found guilty, and even if they were, we don't know all the circumstances. Were they given previous warnings that they ignored?
Finally, WTF has this got to do with IT?