Stuart Hogg: The Costs of Leniency towards Coercive Control
This week deals yet another dangerous green light to perpetrators of domestic abuse and a devastating blow to survivors seeking justice.
Stuart Hogg is poised to return to the rugby field in France and resume his professional career as if nothing ever happened. To lead out his team who hail him as ‘an example’ of leadership. Yet, this is the very same man who, just days ago, was sentenced to a one-year community payback order for domestic abuse against his estranged wife, Gillian.
As abuser Hogg now walks free, having miraculously avoided a custodial sentence following his 5-year campaign of coercive and controlling behaviour, the victims of his crime, his wife and children, now face a harder road ahead; tackling the years psychological trauma he inflicted upon them. This utterly woeful sentence outcome now rightfully raises crucial questions, the very same ones we’ve had for years:
Is coercive control being treated as a serious crime in Scotland, and critically, how does society view this insidious form of domestic abuse?
As a coercive control campaigner, I often review court reports, and reaction to them, and question whether we are truly making progress in addressing crimes that affect so many adults and children. Yet it wasn’t until I joined Nicky Campbell yesterday on BBC Radio 5 Live to discuss this case that I felt that familiar disheartening again. He opened the show by reading a text from a listener:
“‘A criminal conviction for shouting and swearing? What?’ – Ben in Cheltenham”
It was yet another is a stark reminder of how many people still don’t understand what coercive control is, what it does, and the accumulative impact as well as long-term harm it inflicts. Coercive control can never just be minimised as just an argument, or a few angry texts. It is a calculated and bespoke assault on a victim’s mind and autonomy. It creates fear, dependency, and isolation in it’s victims.
Coercive control laws, introduced in England and Wales in 2015 and later in Scotland under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, carry a maximum penalty of 14 years, but remain relatively new as legal systems take time adapt to fully implement them across police and judicary. Hogg, however, was convicted on a general domestic abuse charge, likely due to the challenges in evidencing the nuanced, sustained patterns of behaviour required for coercive control convictions - see Dr Cassandra Wiener’s research and book, Coercive Control and the Criminal Law.
Stuart Hogg’s one-year community payback order, as opposed to a custodial sentence, will mean he will, on the occasion, be expected to ‘check-in’ with a supervisor while continuing his idyllic new life living and play rugby in France.
As prepared as I was to hear about Hogg’s sentence this week, having seen many horrific cases result in similar outcomes, Ben in Cheltenham’s comment still lingered in my mind, long after the radio discussion had ended. You see, Ben’s words encapsulated exactly why high-profile cases like Hogg’s matter. They shape how society perceives and addresses domestic abuse. They inform young men and boys how their idols are treated against the harm they inflict. And respectively, to young women and girls what happens if they report such harms - though note both sexes can and are impacted by domestic abuse.
During the court case in November, the deeply troubling pattern of coercive control that Gillian endured for over five years was uncovered. She expressed her profound distress over Hogg’s abuse, stating:
"The psychological torment I suffered has left lasting scars."
"Our children have been deeply affected by the turmoil at home."
This wasn’t a matter of shouting or swearing alone - this was severe emotional and psychological abuse meted out against multiple parties within his family. The court heard that Hogg would routinely return home intoxicated, berating Gillian for “not being fun” when she chose to stay upstairs with their children instead of engaging with him.
On one occasion, he sent her over 200 text messages in just a few hours, an onslaught that triggered a panic attack. He also tracked her movements using a phone app without her consent (more commonly know as ‘tech abuse’, further stripping away her sense of safety and independence. Even after being placed under bail conditions forbidding contact with her, Hogg still continued his attempts to apply control by repeatedly contacting her. This led to a £600 fine for breaching those restrictions, abuse, dismissed as little more than the cost of an expensive speeding ticket.
In court, Hogg’s legal team acknowledged that his actions were “criminal in nature.” They also argued that Hogg had been struggling with significant mental health challenges, including issues exacerbated by the pressures of his professional career. His defence alleged Hogg had sought treatment at a rehabilitation centre earlier in the year, which he described as a turning point. In a statement shared with the court, Hogg said:
“I was lost, needed help, direction, time away from the spotlight to be able to take a deep breath and think.”
These were presented as mitigating factors, yet during the proceedings and in the time since, Hogg has shown no evidence whatsoever of genuine remorse for his actions. His statements have instead centred on his own struggles, with no public acknowledgment of the deep and lasting harm he caused Gillian, his children and the community and sport he has long been a figurehead in.
The court additionally handed down a five-year non-harassment order on Hogg, prohibiting him from any direct or indirect contact with Gillian. In reality however, these were just pieces of paper that served as little recognition or respect to the harm that she and her children had endured, and survived.
No restrictions have been placed on Hogg’s professional career, no disruption was served as he returns to the playing field in France, and no impact was made on his standing within his club Montpellier - a team that has now unashamedly signed at least three players with convictions for domestic abuse, including Mohamed Haouas, who was sentenced in 2023 for hitting his wife. A club where seemingly talent trumps ethics, and abusing partner’s is staggeringly not uncommon.
The criminal justice outcome towards Hogg is rehabilitative choice by the courts, rather than punitive, yet despite no signs of remorse coming from the player, the question remains as to how and why Hogg has got off lightly?
Is this just another idol allowed a pass, all because he once captained a national sports team has now exiled himself abroad?
This display of ‘justice’ highlights the staggering disparity between how psychological abuse and physical violence are treated, with an ever watchful glaring public watching on, learning for themselves.
Make no doubt, that if Hogg’s actions had involved physical violence, it is almost certain that he would have faced a custodial sentence, with many experts I’ve spoken to expressing agreement with this sentiment. This failure underscores the shameful outcome of this case, neglecting the severity of coercive control and the urgent need to address it, effectively giving perpetrators a green light and enabling the escalation of their abuse. Escalation that can and does lead to physical violence or, in the worst outcomes, domestic homicide.
Research by Professor Jane Monckton-Smith shows that coercive control is an indicator to fatal domestic abuse, fitting with the early stages of her eight-stage timeline of domestic homicide.
The harm caused by coercive control is not just physical, however. Survivors endure profound trauma that can linger for years. Domestic abuse-related suicides remain an often-overlooked outcome, with a sea of deaths often not linked to their abusers in official statistics. Coercive control creates an environment so suffocating and unbearable that victims often feel dependent on their abuse and there is no escape from them.
There are many scenarios this case could have escalated to had Gillian not bravely decided to leave Hogg in 2023 and sought advice from a domestic abuse service. Yet, the criminal justice response here is to ignore the patterns of abuse well-studied and learned upon, instead choosing to continue to minimise it’s affects with a paltry non-custodial sentence.
Hogg’s sentence also raises questions about role models for young men and boys. This was a prize an opportunity to show that these acts are serious and carry equally serious consequences. This was a chance to move beyond outdated ‘traditional’ views too, to challenge ideas that readily dismiss coercive control as merely ‘policing relationships’ as one West Midlands Police Chief Constable put it some years ago.
This is about recognising the signs of harm and fostering a culture of professional curiosity. To actively break down outdated ideas of how an abused victim presents. No longer does a victim of domestic abuse present battered and bruised at the door. They may appear composed and well-put-together, and more often than not unaware that the behaviour they’re enduring even qualifies as abuse. Threads needs to be pulled to unlock the answers, and cases when they come to court like this need to set examples so to be learned from.
Hogg’s continued status as an MBE also sends the opposite message. An automatic mechanism to strip such honours is long overdue, as in each instance public calls to rescind such awards seem to have to be peddled out for it to happen. Allowing Hogg to retain his MBE not only dishonours survivors, it perpetuates a damaging leniency toward his serious crimes.
The disparity and ease with which men like Hogg move on compared to the lifelong consequences for their victims remains a constant troubling outcome I have witnessed over the years of my campaigning. Yet, it is not the courts alone who are responsible for how society tackles this scourge of insidious violence. Sporting institutions and governing bodies too must recognise their role to confront the ethics of allowing men convicted men continue playing professionally.
What message does it send when a convicted abuser is allowed to play, week-in-and-week-out? For their young fans to wear their names on the back of their shirts and sing songs that idolise their talents.
Equally troubling to witness in the wake of Hogg’s sentencing has been the reaction from even parts of the media. Some commentators have framed Hogg’s actions as a personal misstep rather than a deliberate campaign of abuse. Finding some kind of solace that this now a chance for Hogg to ‘relocate his moral compass.’ This narrative mirrors reactions like those of Ben, who text into the radio show, trivialising coercive control as “just shouting and swearing.”
The sad tale of a fallen idol who once captained a nation. Gillian and her children’s harms scrubbed from the outcome.
As a survivor and campaigner on coercive control, to read such commentary has added another outrageous layer to the story, the failure by those charged to understand and contextualise such a case but not even using the term ‘coercive control’ in their pieces actively risks perpetuating its minimisation.
Since the sentencing, Gillian Hogg has expressed her disappointment with the court's decision, stating:
I feel like Stuart’s had absolutely no punishment. My first thought was, is that it? It’s not enough.”
She added that although she strongly feels that his “career should never have been brought up,” ultimately "no sentence" could ever compensate for the "heartache and pain" she and her children endured during the five-year campaign of abuse.
Despite this, and the awful outcome Gillian has faced however, she expressed gratitude for the overwhelming support she has received, stating this week that she was "completely overwhelmed" and that the "abundance of support and love has swamped me in the most positive way."
Gillian is no doubt a strong woman, just as many survivor’s of abuse are who survive their torment, however her case highlights systemic failures handed down to victims in seriously addressing coercive control and it’s harms.
The laws are there, but just as in England and Wales, they are not being applied to their full potential, or in this case, at all. Outcomes are seemingly given a backdoor to more generic convictions for lesser outcomes, whether by way of plea deals or due to the complexity and success rate of prosecuting the offence.
Coercive control destroys lives, yet sentences like Hogg’s ultimately fail to reflect that reality. These are missed opportunities, time and again, to hold abusers accountable and to challenge the perception that coercive control is anything less than serious criminal behaviour.
There is an urgent need to address these outcomes, ensuring coercive control is treated with the seriousness it demands. The lives of survivors and victims cannot, and must not, be dismissed away to be minimised and forgotten, as they so often are here.
If you enjoy my writing please LIKE 👍🏻 and come further with me on this journey SUBSCRIBE ✅ and check out more of my articles! Help make more of this possible! 🚀
This post was frustrating to write, the same repeat patterns of abuse so routinely minimised in the sentence handed down…
Why do we think abusers like Hogg often avoid serious consequences?
What needs to change to truly protect survivors?
For me personally after enduring nine years of coercive control and only leaving the relationship when my eldest child said that she didn’t feel safe at home; I am still coming to terms with the fact that my case hasn’t reached the CPS due to lack of evidence.
Since the police released my husband from bail, I have read an increasing number of articles like yours and it’s devastating to think that justice is not being served for so many survivors.