Jailed sex offender embroiled in divorce court money fight

A child sex offender serving a 14-year jail term is embroiled in a divorce court fight over money with his estranged wife more than a decade after they separated.

Dominic Purvis, who has been convicted of string of offences including sexually assaulting children, wants a pay-out from Sharon Purvis.

Detail of Purvis’s cash claim has emerged after a judge analysed preliminary issues at a family court hearing.

Mr Justice Mostyn oversaw the hearing in private in London early this month.

But the judge has named Purvis, and his estranged wife, in a written ruling published online.

The judge has described Purvis as a “dangerous sex offender” in the ruling and says he will remain in prison for “many further years”.

He said Purvis’s claim for “financial remedies” had to be seen “in that context”.

The Purvises had lived in Taunton, Somerset – and Davenport, Florida, USA – where they ran a cafe, when together, the judge said.

Mr Justice Mostyn said in 2006, Purvis was convicted of possessing indecent images of children, following a hearing at Bristol Crown Court, and jailed.

In 2015, he had been convicted of a number of crimes, including eight sexual assault offences against three children, following a hearing at Exeter Crown Court, and given a 14-year prison sentence.

“The applicant, Dominic Purvis, is a dangerous sex offender,” said Mr Justice Mostyn, who is based in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

“He is presently in prison and will remain there for many further years.

“His claim for financial remedies must be seen in that context.”

The judge said the pair had married in early 2004.

He said technically they remained married, because a decree absolute had not been granted, although their relationship had broken down by the end of 2005.

Purvis said they had begun a relationship in 1992.

Mr Justice Mostyn said he imagined that the judge who oversaw any divorce court trial would “want to consider the question of (Purvis’s) conduct”.

He also said the “staleness” of Purvis’s claim would be relevant.

The judge gave no detail about the amount of money at stake.