At the moment all that has happened is that the judge has deferred sentence for 4 months.
Deferring sentence means that she is being given a chance to reform. If she has met the court's expectations that will be taken into account in sentencing.
The offence she has admitted is unlawful wounding. The sentencing guidelines give three categories for this offence. There isn't enough information about this case to determine whether it is Category 1, 2 or 3 although it seems unlikely to be Category 1. Even if it is Category 1, given that she pleaded guilty that would almost certainly lead to a sentence that could be suspended. If, as I suspect, it is Category 2 or 3 the sentence would definitely one that could be suspended.
The fact that a sentence can be suspended does not mean the judge should suspend it. One of the factors indicating a sentence should be suspended is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. That, presumably, is why the judge has deferred sentencing. The courts tend to lean towards suspending the sentence where possible for a first offence as the offender is more likely to become a serial criminal if they are imprisoned.
Her career prospects may form part of the equation in determining whether or not the sentence should be suspended. But this doesn't just apply to those with potential glittering careers ahead of them. There are cases where defendants on low incomes have avoided jail simply because they had a job.
We don't know how serious the injury was but the fact she was prosecuted for unlawful wounding rather than GBH suggests it wasn't particularly bad. The judge may well consider that more can be achieved through a sentence focussed on rehabilitation rather than destroying her future life prospects.
Someone from the council estate would also probably escape jail in similar circumstances. Even without the alleged promising career as a doctor a first offence of unlawful wounding is more likely than not to produce a suspended sentence.
I note, in passing, the parallels with the Mustafa Bashir case.