You see in your legal spin you are being too generous to your client sorry this woman driver. She may well have had intent to kill as any REASONABLE person would think driving a normal car at a cyclist may well result in death of the cyclist. She was driving a frikin' great tank so serious injury and or death were extremely likely to happen. It is pure luck that this did not happen as she crashed into the shop instead. If I said to you, if you drive your car at a cyclist what are the likely outcomes in injury going to be? I bet you and most of Britain would say probably death or serious injury resulting in serious disability, coma, broken bones, life in a wheel chair or drinking through a straw. So in this instance even though the cyclist only sustained relatively minor injuries this was because of good fortune not because she lacked intention to kill or cause very serious injury. She clearly had intention or was RECKLESS as to causing serious harm or killing the cyclist. This is because she practically demolished the front of the shop and also caused serious damage to the large van. So she did have intention or was reckless imho opinion. The kids all 5 of them may well be her nemesis and saviour. With skilful interviewing it could be revealed what if anything the nutz woman said before she drove at the cyclist such as "Die you f****r, I am going to run you down! However in sentencing the court is going to look sympathetically on her as it could mean that 5 kids go into care if the father(s) is or are absent and unable to take care of the sprigs so she will avoid a custodial sentence. My guess is her punishment will be derisory - 3 penalty points and a £100 fine as she will previously been of good character, an exemplary mother and have done lots of charity work.
.
