A businessman has been jailed after punching a man in the face after storming the victim’s flat with two masked men armed with baseball bats.

Reece Driscoll, whose company has secured a multi-million pound deal, punched the victim in the face at least three times before the two men wearing ski masks with baseball bats struck him around the head in an attack lasting around five minutes.

Driscoll, aged 52, and the other two men entered the flat of Samuel Carroll and his partner on Radcliffe Road, Bury, on January 12 of last year, Manchester Crown Court heard.

Prosecuting barrister Andrew Mackintosh said how Mr Carroll and his partner were in the living room of their flat when they heard loud bangs at the door at around 8.30pm.

Driscoll was shouting‘where is he, where does he live’ to Carroll, referring to a previous incident.

The court heard this referred to an alleged assault involving the brother of one of the two masked men and they believed Mr Carroll may have information on who assaulted him.

Driscoll who was their neighbour was asked to go with them to Mr Carroll’s flat.

Driscoll punched Mr Carroll in the face at least three times before the two men with bats joined in and struck him round the head in an attack that lasted around five minutes.

The three then fled the flat after Mr Carroll’s partner sounded a panic alarm.

Police were called and they found Mr Carroll to be disorientated, he was taken to hospital and examined and was found to have bruises on his forehead and small cuts and bruises to the back of the head.

Mr Mackintosh said the victim said he feared for his life in the attack.

Mr Mackintosh said: “This crime took a significant degree of planning and was premeditated, and weapons were clearly taken into the property.

“It was a planned attack in which defendant took a significant role.”

Defending barrister David Bentley told the court how although Driscoll played a part in the attack, he played a lesser role than the other two men as he was not in possession of a weapon or used a weapon.

Mr Bentley said that Driscoll did not go to the flat with the intent of attacking Mr Carroll but thought that the three would be going to intimidate him to get him to talk.

He said how Driscoll, deeply regrets his involvement in the attack and that he made a significant mistake in allowing access to Mr Carroll’s property.

He added that Driscoll had no disguise or weapons on him and said that the two men escalated the situation.

The court also heard Driscoll part owns an energy company to assist power in social housing, with his devices allowing the most vulnerable people to save a significant amount of money.

The company is due to receive £200 million backing from a Swiss company who will help to manufacture the devices.

Judge Mark Savill said: “You accompanied and facilitated entry into the block of flats for these two men and stormed into their flat.

“You must have noticed both men were armed and what followed being a surprise to you and escalated out of your expectations does not sit easily with me as when you attend in that manner dressed and armed, it really doesn’t take much to believe that things can get out of hand extremely quickly.

“The fact you didn’t use the weapons has little matter and you had an equal role in the attack.

“I’m told that instantly you started to punch Mr Carroll about the head, so you escalated the violence and persisted and said to Mr Carroll ‘you are lying’ when information was offered to him and then the other two then joined in with bats.

“The element of harm was actual and intended and this was three men with fists and weapons attacking one man over a period of five minutes as his partner watched.”

Judge Savill noted mitigating factors as Driscoll’s previous convictions as being old and in the two years it has taken for this case to go to court, he has not committed any further crimes.

He was also cooperative with the police.

Driscoll, of Birwood Road, Manchester was given 20 months in prison for actual bodily harm and nine months for possession of an offensive weapon to be served concurrently.

Judge Savill said: “Whatever the background, whatever ultimate injuries were caused, anyone who enters another’s home in a disguise with weapons can only expect to receive an immediate sentence of imprisonment.”