The family of a man shot dead by Sussex Police eight years ago has launched a final bid for the right to pursue claims of improper conduct by officers in the aftermath of the tragedy.

Suspected drug dealer, James Ashley, 39, was shot in a police raid on his St Leonards flat in January, 1998.

Mr Ashley, from Liverpool, was naked in bed with his teenage girlfriend when armed police entered the property.

His 20-year-old son, James Ashley junior, who was 14 when his father died, and his father, James Ashley senior, mounted a damages claim against Sussex Police, alleging both negligence and "misfeasance" or improper conduct in public office.

The case first came to court last March when Mrs Justice Dobbs "struck out" the family's misfeasance claims on the grounds they had "no prospect of success".

The judge said Sussex Police had already admitted "the death of the deceased was caused by the negligence of the police", also conceding the "negligent handling of the release of the name of the deceased" to the media caused "personal injury" to the surviving family.

The admissions mean the family are entitled to compensation for the police failings but their lawyers have now gone to the Appeal Court seeking to resurrect the misfeasance claims, which relate to events after the shooting.

Lawyers also seek to pursue an "assault" claim over the 1998 tragedy, which was dismissed at the earlier hearing. Mrs Justice Dobbs had also declined to order the police to disclose the Hoddinott and Wilding reports into the shooting to the family on grounds of "irrelevance".

Mr Ashley's death led to a series of inquiries and resulted in the early retirement of then Sussex chief constable Paul Whitehouse and the departure of his deputy Mark Jordan.

It also led to four officers being charged with misconduct in public office. The officer who fired the shot was charged with murder.

All were later cleared.

Edward Faulks, QC for Sussex Police, is defending the judge's decision to bar the misfeasance claims, which he said was fully justified on the evidence.

Although part of the family's claims concerned an alleged "deliberate attempt" to obstruct the criminal investigation, there was no solid evidence to support such claims, the barrister argued.

Because of the concessions by Sussex Police, Mr Ashley's family will be entitled to damages for the "pain and suffering" he endured between the firing of the shot and his death.

His father and son may also be due compensation for their "loss of dependency" on the dead man and for their own suffering caused by the disclosure of Mr Ashley's identity to the media before his formal identification.

The Appeal Court hearing, expected to last three days, continues.

Sussex Police last night said the case was before the court and it would be inappropriate for them to comment.