Ministers are pressing ahead with reforms giving the families of murder or manslaughter victims the opportunity to address the court, despite widespread opposition from senior judges.

So-called victim’s advocates will spell out the emotional impact of the deaths, signalling a break with the tradition bereaved families must remain silent throughout trials unless called to give evidence.

The reform was opposed across the judiciary when it was unveiled as part of Labour's election manifesto last year. Judges, including Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Sir Igor Judge, the Deputy Lord Chief Justice, warned that the courtroom would become an emotional arena.

They were also concerned that the plan could potentially interfere with the outcome of the case, although the address would be made after the jury had reached its verdict.

Announcing plans to push on with the scheme at a seminar in London today, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, said: "Victims and their families currently have no place in criminal justice system, a system that appears to be dominated by judges and lawyers.

"A victim’s advocate can explain in open court what the effect of the death and subsequent events had on the families of murder and manslaughter victims - but it will not be the role of a victim’s advocate to suggest a sentence."

Ministers have said the family’s statement would be given in court only at the sentencing stage, once a defendant has been found guilty. It could be read by an independent legally-trained advocate provided by the state, a lay advocate, a Crown Prosecution Service barrister - or by a family member.

Legal Aid would be available for families who wished to hire a barrister but could not afford one. A manifesto pledge to extend the scheme to include victims of rape was absent from the scheme outlined today.

There were suspicions that because rape cases outnumber homicides by around five times - there were 4,129 rape trials in 2004, compared with 842 killings - such a plan would pose a far higher drain on the public purse.

Proposals to give advocates wider powers to protect families in court, for example by objecting to a defence lawyer’s aggressive questioning of a victim, also appear to have been shelved.

The scheme will be trialled later this year at the Old Bailey, and in four other areas from a shortlist of ten, namely Birmingham, Cardiff, Exeter, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield or Winchester