Vets examining the animals later found many of them heavily matted, covered in faeces and urine, and underweight.
They concluded the animals had been kept in an inadequate space with “filth and squalor”, without sufficient food, water or enrichment.
One of the dogs was found with an “excruciatingly painful” leg fracture, while five others had infected wounds.
The court heard their injuries would have been “obvious to any reasonable owner”.
The court heard Parkes helped officers remove the animals when they were seized and later signed a document transferring them into RSPCA care, identifying him as the owner.
Brown argued that Parkes had an opportunity to challenge that description but did not.
Parkes told investigators that the dogs were registered with vets in the names of himself, his wife and son, and referred to one clinic as “the practice we use”.
The court heard how on 28 April 2025 when it was put to him that the three family members owned the dogs, he replied: “To some capacity, yes.”
When asked if any third party was responsible for the animals, he said no.
Brown said Parkes was able to identify some of the dogs by names and ages, had knowledge of their feeding arrangements, medical treatments and histories.
He also acknowledged that his income helped support the household and the animals, said Brown, and that the poor conditions at the property had existed for some time.
Parkes had described them as “unacceptable”, Brown told the court, but went on to say: “We did our best.”
Brown said it was the prosecution’s conclusion that Parkes “was not simply a person who happened to reside at an address where other members of his family kept animals”.
“He had ownership to some capacity and was one of the persons responsible for the animals,” Brown said.
The trial continues.
