2003, travelling to Liverpool to make the apology to Ashley's mother in person. He said "James should not have died but, and this will be of small comfort to his loved ones and friends, his death has resulted in safer firearms procedures for us all". Ashley's family welcomed the apology but, with the backing of their local MP, Louise Ellman, continued to campaign for a public inquiry. Civil case Ashley's son and father sued Sussex Police for the torts of negligence (in respect of the planning of the operation and the shooting itself), battery, false imprisonment, and misfeasance in public office. The case was first heard by Mrs Justice Linda Dobbs in the High Court in 2004 as Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police. The police admitted false imprisonment and to negligence in relation to the planning of the raid but denied liability for all other counts (including negligence regarding the shooting itself). They offered to pay the full amount of damages sought by the Ashleys under those causes of action. Mrs Justice Dobbs ruled, on summary judgment, that the police's offer meant that continuing with the other claims would be an abuse of process, and that the action for battery had no realistic prospect of success as the burden of proof was on the claimants, who could not negate Sherwood's self-defence claim from the criminal trial. The Ashleys appealed the striking out of their claim for battery to the Court of Appeal, where the case was heard in 2006. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had erred in her decision that the battery claim had no realistic prospect of success and in her decision that the burden of proof rested with the claimant to disprove a defence of self-defence in a civil case. The court allowed the family's appeal, holding that—in a civil action for battery—the burden was on the respondent (the police) to prove their claim of self-defence, and that the claim had to be based on both an "honest" and a "reasonable" belief of being in imminent danger, a higher standard than in criminal law. The court (by a majority) also held that continuing the claim for battery would not be an abuse of process, even though the police had offered to pay all the compensation sought by the family under the claims for negligence and false imprisonment (meaning that they would receive no