As with all other correspondents here I am delighted that they were able to walk away from this one, but I am probably going to be the only party pooper here. I don't quite understand this comment ....
"There was no speeding involved, in fact she was well under her 90km speed limit and they weren't being silly."
What 90km speed limit? I accept that they were not being silly, but the correct maximum speed for the conditions isn't laid down anywhere by law, it is what it is, and to have bent the car this much, or even to have crashed at all, they were clearly going too fast for a driver 3 weeks onto P plates on a dirt road with potholes, lined with trees. Put bluntly, the fact that they crashed categorically proves in itself that they were going too fast for the conditions.
There has been some talk about Defensive driving classes here, I have had to do these regularly (regulations at work) and one thing they tell you is that there is no such thing as an accident, crashes are ALWAYS the result of a human getting in wrong. ( I tried to claim mechanical failure as an exception but they wouldn't accept even that, there view was that incorrect manufacture/maintenance/design etc etc would be the fault - you can't argue with those people sometimes)